Commenter theasdgamer asked how Yes Means Yes is intended to grease the skids of hookup culture for women. This is a crucial question, because conservatives are tempted to assume the law will greatly constrict the hookup culture, as Heather Mac Donald of The Weekly Standard argues (H/T Martel):

Sexual liberation is having a nervous breakdown on college campuses. Conservatives should be cheering on its collapse; instead they sometimes sound as if they want to administer the victim smelling salts…

The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.

But this fantasy denies what the promoters of the law are saying outright. The intent of the law is to make women feel freer to engage in the hookup culture, as Ezra Klein explains:

The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law…

A version of the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law is already in effect at college campuses. It just sits as an impossible burden on women, who need to Be Pretty Damn Sure that the guy who was so nice to them at the party isn’t going to turn into a rapist if they let him into their dorm room — and that’s not something anyone can be sure about.

As the proponents of the law are very openly explaining, the point is to make it feel safe for women to take strange men back to their dorm rooms, or to travel to unknown cities and sleep in strange men’s beds. This is what feminists have in mind, and this is what such a law will promote.

It is worth reiterating that the law will only make these foolish choices seem safe. It won’t actually make doing these things safe. Just like “Teach men not to rape” won’t reduce rape, giving women comfort in making risky choices won’t actually make those choices safe.

234 Responses to How “Yes Means Yes” fuels the hookup culture.

My best guess is this new law will be used as a vehicle for more and increasingly unhinged anti male witchhunts throughout colleges and will eventually infest civil and criminal law, further poisoning male/female relationships

Yes, the mistake conservatives make is in thinking that leftists/feminists are trying to help women, but are just using the wrong methods because their viewpoint is wrong. But that’s not their purpose at all. While this kind of thing might make some women feel temporarily empowered, that’s incidental. The purpose is to change how people view sex, and by extension human nature and value.

Their ultimate goal is to get everyone having bathhouse-style sex: frequent, impersonal, non-procreative, pleasurable but not meaningful, commitment-free, with an assortment of interchangeable partners. A world where you have sex as casually and inconsequentially as you drink coffee. Of course, that’s not possible, so what we get instead is a world where people try to have lots of casual sex and then end up diseased and broken.

It is worth reiterating that the law will only make these foolish choices seem safe.

Yes, in the sense that it will not actually make them safe.

No, in the sense that it will shift the hookup culture away from male fornicator’s preferred form to the female fornicator’s preferred form. This is what Heather MacDonald intuits, but does not explicitly say.

You are obviously correct that it will make fornication more dangerous because safe feelings will lead to further foolhardiness.

We are literally entering the phase of “When sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have sex.” Contrary to what the normally sensible Ms. MacDonald envisions, this law will have NO effect whatsoever on drunken hookup sex. Consider, however, that under this new definition of rape, any time a man has sex with his wife, and does not gain her affirmative consent at each stage of the process, according to the law of the land he becomes a rapist (if he is a college or university student). Imagine the threatpoint this gives a rebellious wife to use against her husband should she become unhaaaappy. As has been noted earlier, there is no statute of limitations for rape in most states…. So if a man’s wife decides he raped her seventeen years ago, and he is unable to produce affirmative proof of her consent for every stage of the process…. He is guilty of rape. Any man who has ever had sex with a woman can now be convicted of rape at any time under this particular legal arrangement. Currently California is only applying this to students at public colleges and universities, but how soon do you really think it will be before it becomes the law for all heterosexual relationships in society? It has long been a feminist trope that all heterosexual sex is rape, now the California legislature is making that a legal fact. Somehow saying they’ll get my penis when they pry it from my cold, dead hands just doesn’t have the same ring to it….

The beginning, unquestionable premise of our social engineers is “fornication is good.” If bad results happen (e.g., unwanted pregnancies, illegitimate children, rapes, women feeling bad the next morning, etc.) systems need to be put in place to lessen the impact of those problems without compromising the essential good of fornication.

I haven’t had time to look up the law completely, but perhaps someone here has.

Does this law reach someone if he is accused of misconduct after he has graduated? That is, can it be used to retroactively deprive someone of a diploma/degree if he was a student while the law was in place and the alleged incident took place when he was a student, but he isn’t a student when the “charges” are brought? Or does it clearly apply only to someone who is a student at the time the allegation is brought?

“Their ultimate goal is to get everyone having bathhouse-style sex: frequent, impersonal, non-procreative, pleasurable but not meaningful, commitment-free, with an assortment of interchangeable partners. A world where you have sex as casually and inconsequentially as you drink coffee. ”

I remember once at a webforum a woman stated once she wished people approached sex as casually as getting a massage. I don’t want to live in a world where sex rates the same as a massage.

As a thought experiment: Consider Adrian Peterson. How could he possibly make it out of college and into the NFL under these rules. He’d be toast by his sophomore year. He had seven illegitimate children. That is a lot of hookups. He got into those hookups because so many women found him attractive. Anyone think at least one of those babymamas wouldn’t retroactively revoke consent the minute she became the previous babymama?

@ okrahead: “MacDonald envisions, this law will have NO effect whatsoever on drunken hookup sex.”

I partly agree. It won’t have any effect on the overall amount of drunken hookup sex.

However, instead of todays beta/Alpha split of 80/20, I see it going more towards 90/10. Some current Alphas will indeed decide it’s not worth it and forego that drunk chick for fear of ruining his future.

But other Alphas won’t. In the last thread, Cane Caldo says “It will put an end to the pump and dump because even an attractive man dare not risk the retroactive wrath of a woman scorned.” Yet isn’t part of what makes an Alpha attractive how daring he is? A current Alpha who “dares” to escalate kino on a girl might not “dare” to do the same when that girl can wreck his life.

Which only means that to a lot of women he’ll start to seem wimpy. On the other hand, other Alphas will “dare” to put it all on the line. Think of the men in prisons, the politicians who “dare” to throw away their entire livelihood for the sake of a fling. There are Alphas who WILL dare–that’s part of the fun.

And these dudes will seem all the more exciting relative all the other guys who “won’t dare”, including some guys who are Alphas today. Women will be having just as much sex, I just suspect they’ll have to team up more often and give the “real men” who don’t give a crap more threesomes.

Furthermore, whatever the intent of the law may be, it’s going to hit the nice guys hardest. Divorce laws were “intended” to protect women from the abusive alcoholic drunkards who beat them every night, but they’re more often used against the nice guy who wasn’t able to keep her haaaaapy.

On the other hand, other Alphas will “dare” to put it all on the line. Think of the men in prisons, the politicians who “dare” to throw away their entire livelihood for the sake of a fling. There are Alphas who WILL dare–that’s part of the fun.

1. You’re over-rating the number of suicidal sociopaths out there.

2. You’re not considering that they will be eliminated by this system. It’s not just a matter of “who dares, wins”, but of the ability of a woman thrown aside to bring real power to bear after the darer has won. Eventually, this will eliminate all alphas.

Jails may be full of “alphas”, but…they’re in jail. Out of the populace.

@ Cane Caldo: “1. You’re over-rating the number of suicidal sociopaths out there.”

Maybe I’ve just run with the wrong crowds, but I’ve come across quite a few.

“2. You’re not considering that they will be eliminated by this system. It’s not just a matter of “who dares, wins”, but of the ability of a woman thrown aside to bring real power to bear after the darer has won. Eventually, this will eliminate all alphas.”

Will it? Have domestic abuse laws eliminated (or even come close to eliminating) all wife beaters? Obviously, no law against any crime will wipe out that crime. However, I once saw a woman on her knees begging the police to not prosecute a repeated felon who had just beaten the snot out of her. When a woman is attracted to a guy she’ll do anything for him, including put up with all sorts of cheating and abuse. Nearly every “battered wife” out there today has the “power” to stop the abuse by just leaving the guy, but a LOT of them stick around and take it. Expect the same in regards to this law, he “rapes” her even by the old standard, but she’s so damn taken with him that she won’t give a damn how much “power” she has over him. He keeps the tingle going, he wins.

“Jails may be full of ‘alphas, but…they’re in jail. Out of the populace.”

And still attracting women through prison pen-pal programs, banging them on conjugal visits after they marry them, getting out of prison eventually and cheating on them with other women.

@Cail Corishev
But I suppose if everybody is doing the bathouse sex, at the end of the day rape won’t exist. It only has power so long as sexual acts are considered valuable, so if sex is completely meaningless, rape is as meaningful as someone sneezing on you. Win win win!!!

Also, feminists are quite stupid in the whole expansion of what is considered “rape” as then actual crimes are not considered as important. I.e. more false or stupid accusations == less actual help or justice for victims regardless of gender. That really pisses me off.

I agree that the law will empower scorned baby mommas, but not that it will give them unrestricted power over attractive men. Those women who overtly use the law against attractive men (by making a formal accusation) will risk being ostracized by other attractive men and other women. It won’t stop the hookup culture, or even seriously reduce it. What it will do is further give women society’s blessing to be promiscuous, along with a false sense of safety. It will mostly serve as hamster food while frightening those men who are less attractive/less tolerant of risk.

Their ultimate goal is to get everyone having bathhouse-style sex: frequent, impersonal, non-procreative, pleasurable but not meaningful, commitment-free, with an assortment of interchangeable partners. A world where you have sex as casually and inconsequentially as you drink coffee.

I don’t know. You may underestimate the power on the side of the “victim is always right” crowd. A lot of women (and men like Klein) invested in maintaining that power. They certainly dominate the culture, in the face of any number of attractive men and other women who might disagree.

Dalrock, you are brilliant.
Feminist efforts to eliminate any sort of mens rea requirement from sex crimes go back a long way, and I have always misunderstood the purpose in this. Make no mistake, under “yes means yes” there is no such thing as yes, and all sex is rape (so long as it is reported). Unless he can prove that he was not present at the time that the sex is supposed to have happened, any man accused will be convicted under this standard. Any version of events which he claims gave him the right to believe he had consent will necessarily fall short of the standard or will be so unlikely as to not be believable. If he admits that she so much as stopped screaming “yes” long enough to inhale, then his own words damn him.

In spite of what you read in editorials on this issue, the standard for mens rea in rape cases is negligence, the lowest possible standard other than strict liability, (no mens rea standard at all) in every western jurisdiction that I am aware. An honest fool who believes he had consent is correctly convicted of rape, because a reasonable man in his place would have known to stop.

I have seen several public statements in the last few weeks by female attorneys who should be disbarred for the shocking level of dishonesty they display in misleading the general public about such basic issues as consent and mens rea. Disbarred. No. Joke. One claimed that there is no mens rea for the specific intent crime of theft, and that the negligence standard for rape is, in fact, specific intent.

What’s always bothered me, though was why women who don’t believe that all sex is rape, and who don’t intend to make false accusations, favor such a state of affairs. Now I see. Thank you.

If they wanted to give women the power to unilaterally toss men out of school or into prison, they would attack the concept of consent all by itself. Under yes means yes, if a man and a woman have sex, the only thing required for conviction is that she report him. If they simply applied the same definition of consent to anything else, they could have men convicted of robbery for touching anything they owned, burglary for coming into a woman’s house, kidnapping for being anywhere near a woman. They don’t care about that. The purpose is not to punish men. Redefining consent is only a sleight of hand to cover what they have done to mens rea for rape.

While this will not reduce by one the number of rapes that occur, and while it may not increase the number of false claims (though I think it likely will), it is intended to encourage women to make the poorest decisions possible. The dynamic between a rapist with mens rea (guilty mind) and his victim will not change. The dynamic between the innocent girl and the innocent guy meeting for the first time will. It isn’t that he has to get her “affirmative consent” (that would be impossible) it’s that he has to make her feel safe. The minute she feels anything negative about whatever they’ve done together, it becomes rape, assault, or at least harassment.

I wonder what they’ll come up with next. How can we punish men who cause women to experience negative feelings before those feelings occur/

This comment is probably going to be long enough to merit a post, but I’d rather keep the conversation here.

One of the reasons for our discrepancies may be the timeline considered. If we are forecasting what will happen within the next five years, then you are more correct than I. What I have been considering is ten or more years from now.

(If I were Ezra Klein) On what grounds do lawmakers “protect” only women in college? If it is accepted as protective and beneficial, then how could it possibly be restricted from women of color who are not in college? Are they not the most vulnerable among us? If we don’t extend the protection to them, is it not the same as if we had loosed fratboy rapists in their government funded housing? Which reminds me: When you think about it: Women in college dorms and women on welfare are both under the protection of the government. Right there we the basis for the equal application of the law. In a fair world, this would extend to any woman who either receives taxes, or is under any sort of tax-relief. Technically, that is all of them. If that’s not enough legalism to suit someone, then we can just appeal to the “common sense” that all women need protection from rapists. If you don’t agree, then…

(As Cane again.) I already corrected my easily mis-interpreted statement about the fate of the most attractive men, but I will be more clear now. As Martel and Dalrock stated the presence of men who take up “who dares, wins” attitude toward fornication will never be eliminated. Individually, they will though; most especially those who engage in pump-n-dump or plate-spinning (PnD/PS) fornication strategies. Basically there are three possible outcomes for the male fornicator:

1) Refuse to fornicate and become Beta; for all intents and purposes. By definition these Alphas are eliminated as they have become Betas.

2) Continue to pursue the PnD/PS lifestyle and eventually run across the a woman whose lust overruns her senses and become vindictive. These women are legion. More importantly, the more attractive a man, the more heightened her lust, and thus she will be wildly vindictive.

Let me re-iterate that the danger of this is hard to overstate. A third of women will break down in tears and beat themselves up for what they did wrong; both imagined and real. Another third of omen who are tossed aside are ravenous for revenge. The rest will do both. A cursory review of the tactics of divorcing women to make outrageous claims of abuse despite the ruin and shame it brings to their own families and children should disabuse anyone of the notion that women fear shame more than they lust after vengeance. Any man who pursues the PnD/PS lifestyle will get nailed. (rimshot)

3) He practices and perfects the serial monogamy dane; which is unnatural both by sin nature and good sense for an Alpha heterosexual men. So long as he steps perfectly–which means without passion or personal satisfaction–then he can continue to fornicate on the woman’s terms. Very few Alpha men can walk this line: not athletes; not artists; not musicians…

The list of Alpha’s with the lack of oomph to be serially monogamous for as long as she wants is limited to future lawyers, bankers, etc. Guys who love money and status, and the perception of being wanted by women, but don’t actually want to love, or conquer, or any of the other gut-based motivations. It will only be guys like Roissy (pre-2011).

“Those women who overtly use the law against attractive men (by making a formal accusation) will risk being ostracized by other attractive men and other women.”

Considering how much the system and the media keep the names of accusers of sex crimes anonymous, this isn’t likely to make a huge difference.

Add, as some one noted, the power of the victim and the white knights.

Martel:

“Which only means that to a lot of women he’ll start to seem wimpy. On the other hand, other Alphas will “dare” to put it all on the line. Think of the men in prisons, the politicians who “dare” to throw away their entire livelihood for the sake of a fling. There are Alphas who WILL dare–that’s part of the fun.”

Note what you are saying about these men: they will end up in prison or destroy their careers for the sake of a fling. These are men that end up being destroyed eventually.

The farther this goes, the more severe and nasty the pendulum is eventually going to swing the other way. Sharia and making all women slaves is going to look more and more appealing to the 90% of the men completely disenfranchised.

Marriage is dying and not coming back, but slavery is going to come back with a vengeance.

This comment is probably going to be long enough to merit a post, but I’d rather keep the conversation here.

One of the reasons for our discrepancies may be the timeline considered. If we are forecasting what will happen within the next five years, then you are more correct than I. What I have been considering is ten or more years from now.

(If I were Ezra Klein) On what grounds do lawmakers “protect” only women in college? If it is accepted as protective and beneficial, then how could it possibly be restricted from women of color who are not in college? Are they not the most vulnerable among us? If we don’t extend the protection to them, is it not the same as if we had loosed fratboy rapists in their government funded housing? Which reminds me: When you think about it women in college dorms and women on welfare are both under the protection of the government. Right there we the basis for the equal application of the law. In a fair world, this would extend to any woman who either receives taxes, or is under any sort of tax-relief. Technically, that is all of them. If that’s not enough legalism to suit someone, then we can just appeal to the “common sense” that all women need protection from rapists. If you don’t agree, then…you’re a rape apologist.

(As Cane again.) I already corrected my easily mis-interpreted statement about the fate of the most attractive men, but I will be more clear now. As Martel and Dalrock stated the presence of men who take up “who dares, wins” attitude toward fornication will never be eliminated. Individually, they will though; most especially those who engage in pump-n-dump or plate-spinning (PnD/PS) fornication strategies. Basically there are three possible outcomes for the male fornicator:

1) Refuse to fornicate and become Beta; for all intents and purposes. By definition these Alphas are eliminated as they have become Betas.

2) Continue to pursue the PnD/PS lifestyle and eventually run across the a woman whose lust overruns her senses and become vindictive. These women are legion. More importantly, the more attractive a man, the more heightened her lust, and thus she will be wildly vindictive.

Let me re-iterate that the danger of this is hard to overstate. A third of women will break down in tears and beat themselves up for what they did wrong; both imagined and real. Another third of women who are tossed aside will be ravenous for revenge. The rest will do both. A cursory review of the tactics of divorcing women to make outrageous claims of abuse–despite the ruin and shame it brings to their own families and children–should disabuse anyone of the notion that women fear shame more than they lust after vengeance. Any man who pursues the PnD/PS lifestyle will get nailed. (rimshot)

3) He practices and perfects the serial monogamy dance; which is unnatural both by his sin nature and good sense, for an Alpha heterosexual men. So long as he steps perfectly–which means without passion or personal satisfaction–then he can continue to fornicate on the woman’s terms. Very few Alpha men can walk this line: not athletes; not artists; not musicians…

The list of Alpha’s with the lack of oomph to be serially monogamous for as long as she wants is limited to future lawyers, bankers, etc. Guys who love money and status, and the perception of being wanted by women, but don’t actually want to love, or conquer, or any of the other gut-based motivations. It will only be guys like Roissy (pre-2011).

“He practices and perfects the serial monogamy dance; which is unnatural both by sin nature and good sense for an Alpha heterosexual men. So long as he steps perfectly–which means without passion or personal satisfaction–then he can continue to fornicate on the woman’s terms. Very few Alpha men can walk this line: not athletes; not artists; not musicians…”

I suspect this will be the adaptive path, seduce the woman, sleep with her for a time, go beta/nice guy with her until the attraction is lost, get dumped by the woman, move to the next woman. The trick will be to do this without becoming completely unattractive to the next woman (strangely enough the “heartbroken routine” does work to attract women. It will still be precarious, because some women will want to have snagged and betasized there alpha.

The level of manipulation will have to be high by the men.

Adoption and surrogacy for men that want families is going to become the norm.

“Yet isn’t part of what makes an Alpha attractive how daring he is? A current Alpha who “dares” to escalate kino on a girl might not “dare” to do the same when that girl can wreck his life.”

Way back in the early 90’s I was enrolled at a college adjacent to an all women’s college. This kind of “all men are rapist” stuff was a constant; things like “take back the night” marches, campus alerts about men masturbating in the bushes were all commonplace, while our college administration was busy pandering and enabling and all but running the men out to be publicly shamed for some imaginary, potential crimes. The essence, of course, of any of these crimes being how a woman “feels” at any point before, during, or after; if she feels “uncomfortable” at any time, it must be due to the negative, oppressive actions of men. full stop.

In any case, at that time the women’s college was championing the Antioch College consent policy (circa ’91). These policies based on the artificial false premise of female hypoagency, grossly disproportionate vesting of responsibility, and ridiculously unrealistic scripting of how consent happens in real life have been around a long time. That is part of how a generation of these beta, blue-pill, white knighting men came to be in the first place.

Interesting that those who champion such a thing are also vehemently against things like teaching abstinence because it is just so unrealistic.

So I see the same thing playing out on a bigger scale as it did on my campus back then. The top men get more, the guys in the thick part of the curve plod through treacherous ground to mixed results, most often resulting in more of those “Average” guys to taking their ball and going home, leaving even more of the hooking-up and casual and harem-building to the top men. And not just because they might tend to be less risk-averse, but because they are attractive and in the minority (in a rather static population of a college campus) and are thus granted a different set of standards, qualifying conditions, and residual responsibility from the beginning.

What seems to “just happen” with the alphas must be a series of carefully choreographed steps and qualifying events for the beta; they are held to a different set of standards long before they are even in the position to have such consent dialogues. Just like men who get the ONS vs the boyfriend who got to wait until she was ready because she “cares more” about him; the alpha, by nature of his attractiveness to her, is exempted from these kinds of artificial measures.

There will always be the occasional high-profile alpha who will become a target, but by and large this kind of law is just one more thing artificially propping up the price of sex for the men who are already paying 3x what the alpha men are charged. Controlling male sexuality rarely targets the alpha male; it is more about preserving female sexual optionality by assuring beta men stay on task and don’t realize their power for their own purposes. There must be a stable of beta bux waiting. And in a time when female college enrollment is nearing 60% on average, the resulting power imbalance shifting toward those beta masses is dangerous must be caged.

These laws won’t strip the alpha fux out of the AF/BB approach, that’s not the point. They will just make life more difficult for the rest of the men who are in their final years of feminized indoctrination preparing them for 15 years of hard-work followed by the chance to fulfill their beta bux destiny. Just one more set of irrational and contradictory conditions in which the beta-in-wait must successfully navigate for his chance to provide; when she decides she is ready for a man who treats her as an equal.

I suspect this will be the adaptive path, seduce the woman, sleep with her for a time, go beta/nice guy with her until the attraction is lost, get dumped by the woman, move to the next woman.

Pretty much.

The level of manipulation will have to be high by the men.

Yes, and I do not believe even one in a hundred men can keep this up. There are essentially only three reason to be a Player:

1) The desire for lots and varied sex
2) The desire to feel “in-love”
3) To use/hate women.

Only those motivated primarily by number 3 will be able to maintain the manipulative path. Those motivated by 1 and 2 aren’t going to be able to get what they want without getting punished, and thereby removed from most of society because sex crimes stick.

Only those motivated primarily by number 3 will be able to maintain the manipulative path. Those motivated by 1 and 2 aren’t going to be able to get what they want without getting punished, and thereby removed from most of society because sex crimes stick.

The issue with this is that most people will be sex criminals under this regime, until the entire sex script shifts (if that ever happens). And it will apply for marrieds as well, and quite irrespective of when they were married. It is opening not a pandora box, but a pandora universe.

“Sexual liberation is having a nervous breakdown on college campuses. Conservatives should be cheering on its collapse; instead they sometimes sound as if they want to administer the victim smelling salts…
The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.”
———————————–
Precisely the expected response from a conservative woman.

The conservative woman agrees with 98% of the feminist agenda.

They only differ in HOW to hold the whip.

For years I’ve tried to tell my fellow manospherians that feminist rape politics is really just back door ball-and-chainism.

You BELIEVE feminists when they say they don’t want to charge a price for sex anymore?

How can a woman who sees rape EVERYWHERE (and whose general attitude towards sex make the Shakers look like 1960’s Greenwich Village) even remotely be earnestly thought of as ‘sex positive’?

‘Yes means Yes’ always was and is an attempt to coerce men into commited relationships via sexual blackmail.

It’s the modern feminists answer to the old adage “Why buy the cow if you can steal the milk?”

Well if they can’t get men to pay for the cow up front anymore these days (owing to all the free milk out there) then they reckon they can just fix things so that females can give a little milk away and then threaten to tell the police that he stole the milk unless he agrees to buy the cow!

Perhaps I have not fully appreciated the position but to my eyes the only place the two students are likely to have sexual intercourse is either in his dorm or in hers, and there can only be one reason that they will be in each others dorm. I thus deprecate the idea that a woman going back to a man’s room can be raped; it comes nowhere close to clearing the hurdle which would qualify the act as Rape for in going back to the Dorm the woman indicates her intentions and has shown her lack of chastity. Rape being a crime against chastity (and thus against men) and not female whim she has not in any sense been violated. There is in our free-love days where every woman thinks that she has the right to go back to a boys dorm a case to be made for the abolition of the crime of Rape. The California legislators are not however warning women against the likelihood that meetings in dorms lead to sexual intercourse, neither are they advising against the health risks (AIDS STDs Pregnancy) let alone a lost reputation for to do so would be to interfere with the autonomy of the student. As Prime Minister Baldwin put it nearly a hundred years ago these women ‘like the harlot throughout the ages seek power without responsibility’ and that is what the California legislators are handing to these impressionable sexually interested but naïve young women. What could possibly go wrong.

“My best guess is this new law will be used as a vehicle for more and increasingly unhinged anti male witchhunts throughout colleges and will eventually infest civil and criminal law, further poisoning male/female relationships”.

First comment, best comment. That’s exactly what the law intends to do. This will also further skew the number of women to men graduating college and then taking higher earning jobs and leadership positions in society thus screwing up men/women relationships even more and reducing the average man to more second class citizen serf status. The legislature in California is openly Fascist and it’s kind of funny how with all of the economic problems the legislature seems incapable of addressing that the general public would just accept that college rape (non rape) issues should be a top priority. Like nobody even blinks an eye that the government is involved with legislating something they have no right to be involved in at all. Totally a personal responsibility issue and yet the dumb public accepts this as normal and then debates the merits and practicality of the law. Really? Really! We are that far gone.

The beginning, unquestionable premise of our social engineers is “fornication is good.” If bad results happen (e.g., unwanted pregnancies, illegitimate children, rapes, women feeling bad the next morning, etc.) systems need to be put in place to lessen the impact of those problems without compromising the essential good of fornication.

Another great comment. And the evil genius behind all this is how many can say that they don’t love to fornicate and it’s not the top priority? That is the main reason we are doomed. You can’t appeal to reason when it comes to the Fornication Imperative. The real FI. 🙂

As much as this is about Power and Control, the way this gets traction really comes down to the removal of Obligations. A classic aspect of, well, the Feminine Imperative. It’s definitely a rally point between two camps that think they disagree with each other.

“This will also further skew the number of women to men graduating college and then taking higher earning jobs and leadership positions in society thus screwing up men/women relationships even more and reducing the average man to more second class citizen serf status.”
———————————————-
OK, I almost agree with you here BUT….

Most of these women are graduating in Wimminz Menstrating Vagina Basket Weaving Studies not STEM stuff.

Plus the whole college curriculum is being dumbed down by the minute.

Colleges are rapidly becoming nothing but debt accumulation machines that economic necessity will eventually level all on it’s own (their original functionality replaced with an assortment of trade schools, apprenticeships, tech institutes, business colleges, etc.).

What IS happening (right now) is that the feminists are quietly acknowledging the superiority of the male brain in tech, as evidenced by all the recent articles complaining about having to share power in businesses with ‘bro-grammers’.

They KNOW that they are unable to duplicate men’s skills in these areas (at least not in sufficient quantity) and that this places such men in positions of power that they definitely don’t want them to have.

And so they, and their sycophants, are doing everything in their power to try and marginalize them (their collective bargaining power, their pay, etc.).

Also notice how ASD has expanded to include the slightest bit of eccentricity in boys.

The intention is to marginalize exactly the kind of men that are good in tech.

To find a way to box them in.

Strip away their rights on the grounds of mental illness say.

Basically they are actively seeking a way to get Atlas to hold up the world at gun point.

And don’t forget Heinlein. He never could grok that there might be a connection between sexual constraints and building a society. To him society was made by atomized individuals out-competing each other, not groups with common beliefs or morals and he’s influenced a ton of people on the libertarian spectrum to view sex as purely recreation.

“My best guess is this new law will be used as a vehicle for more and increasingly unhinged anti male witchhunts throughout colleges and will eventually infest civil and criminal law, further poisoning male/female relationships”

The proponets of Yes means Yes think it will reduce Game and assault; will remove the ambiguities. they think it will foster and encourage the growth, development and proliferation of healthy relationships and marriages. They think it will create safer places for women to seek relationships (or not).

YMY will do none of these things.

Proponents of YMY also are Game deniers and Game haters. This law will only increase Game and swell the prevalence of its practitioners. Jerks, players, and cads will be the only ones with the balls and the resolve to press forward. Less adept men will give up, because they cannot run the risks of an encounter going bad. They can’t risk criminal records, loss of jobs, loss of family, loss of money and time. The risks aren’t worth the puny rewards.

This law will expand to all forms of social interaction, beyond sex on college campuses. It will expand to all sex between “consenting adults”. It will extend into marriage. A woman need only claim that she did not give “affirmative, knowing and voluntary agreement” to “sexual activity” during marriage, and the cops will bust down the doors and haul the man in for charges.

And all this is clearly, clearly the intent behind it – to expand this to all forms of social interaction between men and women, to weed out the so-called “unattractive” men, and to give women more and more power in the sexual marketplace.

What marriage is now is what social interaction between men and women will become – a man merely looking at a girl too long will bring a complaint to police, and a man will have to answer merely for his gaze. He could be fined or even imprisoned.

“Yes means yes” will only increase Game because the only men willing to try will be those with proven successful sexual track records. It will only create more ambiguity. It will only cause more “good men” and providers to drop out or hoard their earnings, refusing to put them to the service of women. It will leave only the jerks, thugs, cads and players in the SMP as the only men willing to navigate the sexual minefield. These men won’t marry because they don’t have to.

Men who “stay in the game” will quickly learn self-defense. They will start video recording every sexual encounter. They will document every interaction with every woman. They will save every selfie, every nudie, every sext, every explicit text exchange.

They will learn to deploy their own nuclear options –“Go right ahead and accuse me of rape. You’ve got the law? I’ve got video, baby. I’ll show the police the video recordings of your, uh, enthusiasm. And after I show the cops, it goes on the internet. So. Still wanna go there?”

YMY will severely discourage and curtail marriage. More and more men will refuse to take chances on the cuties they see out and about. They know that anything they do could potentially result in a rape charge. The entire point of interacting with women is to get to sex and relationships but even attempting that is simply too dangerous. Since trying to get to sex involves unspoken interactions and frequent misunderstandings, and is now fraught with danger at every step of the interaction, men just won’t even try. Men who might be good matches for certain women will never try. Matches that might have been made before will never even be introduced, because the men won’t try – it’s too dangerous.

The men who would be willing to marry won’t be in the marketplace because they dropped out, and they won’t prepare to marry in the first place because they never got the signals to prepare for it and there’s no point in trying anyway. Marriage rates will continue sliding; the age at first marriage for men and women will continue inching up.

Women will continue to get pumped and dumped. The unhappy ones, ones who regret the encounters or they didn’t go exactly as hoped or planned, will quickly and quietly drop their “lack of consent” claims when video recordings of the encounters in question surface, together with smiling photos and confirmatory texts. A few such women and their institutions of higher learning will be defendants in defamation lawsuits. Some of those videos will make their way to the internet.

This law will have (and is clearly intended to have) a chilling effect on less assertive men. It will only embolden the thugs, jerks, players, cads and “rapey” men its proponents say they want to discourage. The “dads” that some in these parts claim they like so much will only become less engaged.

“Dads” are the rules followers, the betas, the engine of our economy, the parts of our society who make it run. They can’t afford to take a flyer on some cutie at a bar or some other meeting place. So they won’t approach girls they otherwise might approach. Matches that might have been made in the past will never get made, because the men are too afraid to try. That’s what Ezra Klein wants – a world where men are afraid of sex.

But the guys who will approach? Players, cads, and jerks. They are more aggressive, have less to lose, don’t care anyway, and will have learned the workarounds.

There are those who claim that this law will apply equally to women. That’s absurd on its face. As Nova explained above, this law will never, ever be applied to any woman anywhere. This law is intended to apply solely and only to straight men operating in male-female interactions. Its proponents proceed from a view that men are always sexual aggressors and all are potential rapists.

This is more evidence to me that women are lying when they say they want good men, nice men, kind men, providers. They don’t – they want to winnow good men away from them, and encourage only the men who will push through the resistance.

They don’t even realize they are actually ENCOURAGING Game, negs, hot/cold, push/pull, dread, “dark triad” traits, and all the rest of it, because the men who employ those tactics are the only ones who will be able to successfully navigate the SMP they’re creating. But, then, that’s the point, isn’t it? The point here is to eliminate the betas and make them “wait their turn” when it comes time for them to pony up their money to start supporting the soon to be retired carouselers.

It’s funny that this law/policy will discourage the men these women say they want. And, this law will only encourage the men they claim not to want. It’s clear to me these women are going to use this law for what blogger Whiskey has often pointed out: Such laws merely serve to separate out attractive men that women want from unattractive, unwanted men. All a woman has to do to fend off a good man is to shout “Yes means Yes! BUSTED!!!” and the guy is well and truly screwed.

1) The desire for lots and varied sex
2) The desire to feel “in-love”
3) To use/hate women.

Only those motivated primarily by number 3 will be able to maintain the manipulative path.

I will speculate that the number of betas (and below) who become motivated by number 3 will explode as this insanity metastasizes. Having nothing left to lose, the palpable prevalence of real “misogyny” is going to be the stuff of which volumes will be written by future historians. Wahhabi Islam’s treatment of women will look benign and loving by comparison.

” It just sits as an impossible burden on women, who need to Be Pretty Damn Sure that the guy who was so nice to them at the party isn’t going to turn into a rapist if they let him into their dorm room”

@ Cane Caldo: There’s (at least) a 4th reason: adventure, pushing boundaries, seeing if you can pull it off, wanting to be the best at something. There were players in other eras who seduced woman after woman even when they could be challenged to a duel and caught if they were caught. Some men do it just because they can.

And interesting how in Leviticus a woman had to cry out if a guy came on to her too strongly for it to be considered rape. Now she doesn’t have to so much as breathe of the English languages most easily uttered one-syllable words: no.

Another potential defense for Alphas against YMY: “But here’s a potential scenario the law could create that no one’s talking about: What happens when young men, fearing they will be falsely accused by women they’ve slept with (even if they think that ever-important trust has been achieved), start pre-emptively accusing women of sexual assault because, as the law stands, a man has just as much a right to accuse as a woman?”

So, I have a penis. I don’t get to control my own body? I can be bred without my consent mattering to anyone? I can be forced to support my abusers? I can’t escape, even if I temporarily physically escape? My genetic heritage means this is my only future?

This means I get all the aspects of slavery, minus the actual beatings? Man, that “Django Unchained” was a smart movie. “Why don’t they just… rise up?” I know, right?

“I will speculate that the number of betas (and below) who become motivated by number 3 will explode as this insanity metastasizes. Having nothing left to lose, the palpable prevalence of real “misogyny” is going to be the stuff of which volumes will be written by future historians. Wahhabi Islam’s treatment of women will look benign and loving by comparison.”

Think of the freebies the betas give, that they won’t anymore for fear of by seen as a romantic gesture

“What happens when young men, fearing they will be falsely accused by women they’ve slept with (even if they think that ever-important trust has been achieved), start pre-emptively accusing women of sexual assault”

Black knighting. But, it won’t get much traction. I suppose it’s possible, but it’s too negligible to be of any real import. This law is clearly and plainly intended to apply only to straight men.

It would be fun, wouldn’t it? The alpha making the accusation can rely on “rape shield” laws, which provide that evidence of a woman’s past sexual conduct is inadmissible in criminal sexual assault trials. Says the alpha, “no no no, you can’t admit evidence of our previous sexual trysts. And you can’t bring in my former sex partners to testify floridly about my sexual past. Those facts are irrelevant. The ONLY thing that’s relevant is whether she grabbed my junk at THIS time on THIS date on THIS occasion and whether I gave “affirmative consent” to said grabbing. NO other facts are material to this question.”

I agree that most betas won’t do this, because they’re just happy to be getting anything.

You know, as I think about this more, the entire purpose of this law is to recreate the West as one big Sadie Hawkins dance. (The Sadie Hawkins dance is where the girls ask the guys to the dance; and ask the guys to dance. Guys aren’t allowed to go unless a girl asks them; and they aren’t allowed to dance unless a girl asks them.)

That’s what this is — women get total and complete power to select the participants, the rules of engagement, and the entire course and scope of the interactions. The woman controls everything. She controls not only when and whether sex happens, but she controls the pace and scope and contours of it; all the way down to which breast gets touched and how and when; down to how many thrusts are permitted, down to how many orgasms he has to give her. He is a life support system for a dildo that she takes off the shelf and uses when she feels like; then tosses aside when she doesn’t.

Deti said ..“That’s what this is — women get total and complete power to select the participants, the rules of engagement, and the entire course and scope of the interactions. The woman controls everything. She controls not only when and whether sex happens, but she controls the pace and scope and contours of it; all the way down to which breast gets touched and how and when; down to how many thrusts are permitted, down to how many orgasms he has to give her. He is a life support system for a dildo that she takes off the shelf and uses when she feels like; then tosses aside when she doesn’t.”

That’s the way I see it. This is a complete power play for unprecedented control of single men. They have the married men right where they want them. Now for you men who won’t “man-up” the 30+ year old carousel riders. Train them early via college so that when this goes nationwide and in effect the law of the land they will have complete knowledge of how this works.

A number of years ago I told several women NO to SEX and was physically attacked. (eg One with a kitchen knife.) Now she can just politely tell me to go to jail.

As I have stated .. we will be forbidden from marrying women of another nationality and they will build fences with armed guards to keep the US citizen males from leaving the USofA.

Too many of you are still ignoring the power and desire of a scorned woman to get revenge. Not even the most alpha is immune to that. Sure, those in jail may get pen pals and even flings when they get out, but that is not the same thing.

Keep in mind that the alpha that gets away with it and practices monogamy for a period, only to be seen as a beta later will likely get charge with rape at some point by a woman who decides that she really didn’t want sex with him at all since he was a beta “all the time” (in her eyes at that point). That path would fail big time.

We are a lawless nation. This is just another item to make everyone criminals.

Gunner QHold up, lads! Look at the calendar. YMY was signed by Governor Up-For-Reelection Brown just over a month before the midterm election.
YMY isn’t next-wave feminism. It’s nervous politicians scaring little girls into reelecting them. What a courageous, profitable exercise of our legislators’ time and power.

Likely the same thing could have been said of Ronald Reagan in 1969. Nevertheless, men’s-fault divorce spread to all other states in only a few years.

It just needs enough men to actually put up a fight, which in turn would burden the system and bring it down. Enough pressure and the law will crumble under its own weight. If you’re going to be accused of rape, you might as well fight with absolutely everything you have. I see that happening quite a bit frankly.

There is something of a way out for men (not of divorce but of this whole rigmarole with the new law). And a way out of divorce as well. Of course, only the Christians will seriously consider it I’m sure, and from my experience very few of them.

1) Don’t fornicate.

2) Don’t get married, unless you are completely convinced she is never ever going to leave you for any reason. Sure, you might be wrong, but if you’re not at that level of assurance at least in your mind I don’t know if it’s WORTH the risk. St. Paul said it’s better not to marry.

Another angle worth pointing out: the law is not intended to apply objectively. There won’t be some chaperone sitting in every dorm room counting the verbal indications of consent. It’s not even intended to change womens’ behavior. This law is intended to serve as Damocles’ Sword over the head of men. Women will continue to invite strange men into their dorm rooms, jump their bones, and fornicate. The guys will continue to go along with this willingly.

The next morning, the two of them are the only witnesses to the event. You’ll get cases of rape, yes, that’s always going to happen and I hope I don’t need a disclaimer to show I think that’s bad. But what you’ll have in every non-rape case (that is, the vast majority of all sexual encounters) is an ordinary, consensual sexual encounter where the man actually broke the rule/law. It means that what the manosphere has labelled “regret rape” is actual, legal rape. She doesn’t have to spin a story about being frightened or held down. She merely has to state that he really did not obtain the proper form of consent, and he’s guilty.

I haven’t read the law. In all likelihood, all the right legal terms for intent, consent, and communication are there, with adequate precedent to define each term. But I do know the kind of people pushing this law, and they frighten me – I know what they’ll do given the chance. I won’t trust them until I start seeing women prosecuted for failing to obtain consent, every bit as often as men are.

Conservatives and feminists like this one because it gives women the power to destroy a man’s life if he doesn’t call back and might force more men into commitment and marriage (and a future divorce rape).

Both will push this law up into the criminal justice level. When a wife is afraid of her husband, thanks to VAWA, the husband can be removed from the home and his future can be destroyed. Who voted for VAWA? All he has to do is piss her off and it’s over. It’s not about fear, it’s about power and control. When a women regrets having sex or wants revenge from rejection, she can have a man removed from campus, destroying his future. It’s not about fear, it’s about power and control. Rapists don’t ask for permission to have sex. They forcefully take it. This law has zero to do with rape.

Some things are as simple as they appear on the surface. Next comes redefining domestic abuse in terms of denying monetary resources in marriage and cohabitation and redefining cohabitation in terms of palimony (giving cohabiting women rights to alimony).

2) Don’t get married, unless you are completely convinced she is never ever going to leave you for any reason. Sure, you might be wrong, but if you’re not at that level of assurance at least in your mind I don’t know if it’s WORTH the risk. St. Paul said it’s better not to marry.

I can only see this as an accelerator for TFH’s misandry bubble. Many betas are going to leave the meat market and simply not come back. Instead, they’ll have VR porn and dolls with a USB connection running a variety of programs from a PC,

As some of you know I’ve worked in the distilled spirits industry for over 10 years now. I’m well versed in how individual states regulate alcohol. In certain ‘control’ states it’s the responsibility of the drinker to moderate his/her own drinking and falls to the individual (Utah and Arkansas for example) to waive any right to legal damages to the state or the establishment where the drink tied one on and later got into an accident in a DUI or some other legal mess because of being drunk.

In these states (again Utah and Arkansas for example) bars and drink serving restaurants will have ‘ledgers’ at the front door that drinkers must identify and sign themselves before they can get served. Essentially it documents that waiver of damages against the establishment and state.

So with this in mind is it theoretically feasible to have women sign a similar ‘ledger’ that waives any Yes Means Yes damages for women wanting to go to a frat party? Can that Yes Means Yes legal benefit be waived by a blanket statement?

A. Sound and fury signifying nothing – the impracticability of proof combined with the residue of our existing legal structure combine to thwart the witchhunts; specifically, plaintiff’s lawyers having field days suing colleges who have destroyed men’s lives based on nothing at all; after all, no matter how insane a university may be, how many seven or eight figure legal judgments can they withstand before tossing in the towel?

B. Any/all of the worst case scenarios above actually happen

My guess is A but I think the chance of B occurring may be 40% or even higher

“So with this in mind is it theoretically feasible to have women sign a similar ‘ledger’ that waives any Yes Means Yes damages for women wanting to go to a frat party? Can that Yes Means Yes legal benefit be waived by a blanket statement?”

Depends on a lot of things — the criminal and civil law scheme in that state, etc.

But under a scenario where YMY is the law of the land, no. YMY’s provisions as contained in the California statute don’t lend themselves to blanket waiver or modification. They are fact intensive and can be evaluated only on case by case bases. It’s not about what generally happens. It’s about what happened at THIS time with THESE people under THESE particular circumstances..

That’s why video recording of sexual encounters is going to be de rigueur and commonplace. It will have to be. It’s one of the only ways a man will be able to defend himself against these iffy, ambiguous situations of whether “affirmative consent” was given.

Susan keeps talking at her site about “nonverbal consent” like removing panties, or grinning, or returning a passionate kiss. Under YMY, the man has at least the burden of coming forward with evidence to show that consent was affirmative, conscious, voluntary, ongoing and not revoked. Without video, it’s “he said, she said”, which leaves us right where we were before, only with shifted burdens, lowered standards of proof, relaxed evidence rules, and no procedural safeguards.

A. Sound and fury signifying nothing – the impracticability of proof combined with the residue of our existing legal structure combine to thwart the witchhunts; specifically, plaintiff’s lawyers having field days suing colleges who have destroyed men’s lives based on nothing at all; after all, no matter how insane a university may be, how many seven or eight figure legal judgments can they withstand before tossing in the towel?

I think the key questions are:
1) What prevents women from making (more) false rape accusations today?
2) How would the change in the law change item 1?

For the vast majority of women who are tempted to make such an accusation, I would argue that the reason they don’t make false accusations today is not the fear of not getting a conviction, but the fear of being seen as someone who makes dangerous accusations. Note the common feminist hand-wringing that women don’t make accusations because they fear being judged. There is I think at least a kernel of truth here. Making deadly serious unprovable accusations against someone who is liked/respected/attractive doesn’t go over well. Even developing a reputation for accusing lower status men will make the wiser ones in the social group keep their distance. In this situation the findings of the campus kangaroo court don’t help much, because everyone knows they are a joke. Making them more of a joke won’t change much here, and it could actually make this category of women less likely to make accusations.

However, there is a subset of women who are either bat shit scorned as Cane describes above or just plain head cases/sociopaths. These women are less concerned about social rejection and very often are geographically or socially transient. For this category the ability to inflict pain via the kangaroo court is very much a motivating factor.

There is an interaction between the two groups, because women in group 2 (the vengeful psychos) drive the very perception that women in group 1 don’t want to be associated with.

Overall my expectation would be a noticeable increase in false accusations with the attendant destruction of honest men, where group 2 psychos drive the trend. But we won’t see the majority of women making accusations. Also, the more the accusations start to upset the hookup apple cart, the more strongly the social group will tend to reject those who make any accusation.

“So with this in mind is it theoretically feasible to have women sign a similar ‘ledger’ that waives any Yes Means Yes damages for women wanting to go to a frat party? Can that Yes Means Yes legal benefit be waived by a blanket statement?”

That would be seen as “unconscionable” although I see “slave contracts” and S&M becoming more popular with men because of this. You might as well get full consent to “everything” ahead of time. With a “safe word” as a revocation of consent (or perhaps no safe word at all).

Mal the cynic:

What you are first describing is MGTOW, or porn and avoidance and sliding by through the world, which is increasing already for the young men.

This will not protect them, unless they find a job and an environment in which they are not interacting with women at all.

As for the marriage part. Marriage is dead. Its over for now.

Every dumb ass that’s been divorced was in love at one point and thinks the woman is “worth it” and won’t do that to him.

A man foolish enough to want to get married should before getting involved (because once you’re involved you don’t think straight) make sure the woman meets the following criteria:

1) Virgin
2) Deeply religious
3) Chaste and Demure (for those that think chaste means the same thing as virginal, go look it up)
4) Young
5) with very religious, non divorced parents

and even then, as a suggestion if you want to stay married, keep her pregnant.

Good luck finding that. (being Christian doesn’t count as deeply religious, nor does any claim by her of being virginal)

I do not think this is going to change the way men think as much as intended because it will accelerate the rate at which men eschew college degrees. Like I said once all colleges have this, the ratio of men to women at college will be 1:4.

DetiSusan keeps talking at her site about “nonverbal consent” like removing panties, or grinning, or returning a passionate kiss. Under YMY, the man has at least the burden of coming forward with evidence to show that consent was affirmative, conscious, voluntary, ongoing and not revoked. Without video, it’s “he said, she said”, which leaves us right where we were before, only with shifted burdens, lowered standards of proof, relaxed evidence rules, and no procedural safeguards.

I try to avoid discussing personalities except when it relates to factual claims being made. Then the person in question or account etc. has a track record that is directly relevant to any claims.
Two points :
First: $usan Wal$h[1] has demonstrated in the past a tendency to ignore primary sources, to misread scientific studies (leaving out inconvenient facts), and to just flat out mis read text above a certain level of complexity.

Second: She’s an aging feminist, who supports the Feminine Imperative, so naturally she’ll obfuscate, deny, move goalposts, and generally behave in a disingenuous manner in support of this “men’s fault” standard for sexual conduct.

That site became totally female-centric years ago. For alll the protestations, it’s just more of the same: men as fashion accessories, sources of money, and robotic burden-bearers. So it should be no surprise that there cannot be an honest discussion of this law or any other issue at HU$.

[1]She’s clearly more interested in profit than in actually discussing ideas or helping people. Therefore some have taking to inserting dollar signs, in order to send the message easily.

My *girlfriend* has now told me that she wants to be verbally asked every time. EVERY TIME.

I have now taken it one step further. I ask her if it’s okay to come near her. Touch her. Kiss her. And I text her permission before I call her. Yes, it is infuriating her. And no I will not stop doing this. She can leave or she can admit that she just treated her boyfriend like a “potential rapist” and apologize.

The only way to behave is to up the ante IMHO.

Ask permission for EVERYTHING until you annoy the living crap out of them.

The issue is that the man will have to prove consent. Even if consent is “non-verbal”, it will have to be taped and with great video and audio to be very clear for the judge/jury, because in a he-said/she-said scenario, the default setting is “guilty” under YMY. That is, the default is that all sex is rape unless consent is proven.

You are referring to the Old Testament standards between a woman raped “in town” and one raped in the countryside. If “in town” she had to provide witnesses as any resistance or cries for help would have been heard or seen. If the rape supposedly/allegedly occurred in the countryside the burden of proof (of guilt) was less. Pretty much if a woman “in town” claimed to have been raped and no one heard a thing they just dismissed her claim. This is a vicious bias of the patriarchy because … you know, logic and reason.

For the vast majority of women who are tempted to make such an accusation, I would argue that the reason they don’t make false accusations today is not the fear of not getting a conviction, but the fear of being seen as someone who makes dangerous accusations.

But they do make them; they just don’t make them to police. Polls show that 5 out of 4 women have been sexually abused…

I kid, but it’s not funny.

Yes Means Yes seems poised to complete the total inversion of sensible (and Biblical) restrictions on sex, and that will include closed-door “courts”. Who will see them as false accusers when the accuser doesn’t have to enter the room? The dam of that currently separates the phony private accusation (as private as a daytime talk show, anyways) from the public scrutiny is breaking, and like all watersheds the movement is one way. The flood will wash many men away just as no-fault divorce did…not all, and not most, but how many is too many? Few foresaw yesterday the results we have today of 40% choosing to divorce.

So with this in mind is it theoretically feasible to have women sign a similar ‘ledger’ that waives any Yes Means Yes damages for women wanting to go to a frat party? Can that Yes Means Yes legal benefit be waived by a blanket statement?

In theory sure. In practice? I mean, cmon, Rollo. You know better than that. Sex will never be treated like alcohol, because sex is the golden fleece.

What you are first describing is MGTOW, or porn and avoidance and sliding by through the world, which is increasing already for the young men.

This will not protect them, unless they find a job and an environment in which they are not interacting with women at all.

As for the marriage part. Marriage is dead. Its over for now.

I take it you’re not a Christian then, because as a Catholic Christian I consider the first part of that statement poppycock (you’re basically saying it’s impossible to be a good single Christian bachelor outside of the clergy) and the second part nonsense.

> It just sits as an impossible burden on women, who need to Be Pretty Damn Sure that the guy who was so nice to them at the party isn’t going to turn into a rapist if they let him into their dorm room — and that’s not something anyone can be sure about.

Wow, these people must be afraid to walk down the street. In 2012 in Los Angeles there were 936 actual cases of rape, in a city of 3.8 million.

That means the chance of an average person being raped in a city like LA in any given year is only .024%. Let’s concede that the majority of rapes only happen to women, so then the odds of a woman being raped in a given year in a typical US city like LA is only .05%!!!! So what are they all up in arms about? Whatever happened to just living your life. I live in an area where the odds of me being murdered are higher. But I don’t spend all my time worrying about it. That’s because I have faith and I’m not weak like these people.

I know it’s a cliche at this point… but what ever happened to “strong, empowered women”? These progressive liberals’ arguments can be easily destroyed, but the problem is that they live in their little echo chambers, surrounded by other brainwashed idiots.

Americans pride themselves on being evolved bien-pensants, but I have come to realize that they believe just as much nonsense, if not more, than “superstitious” people in places like Africa and Latin America.

I’m so glad I left that insane country. If only 20% in the US think like Ezra Klein (yeah I know he’s a guy but he’s just mirroring hysterical women’s sentiments in a futile attempt to win their favor), then I can’t even stand to be around them, and risk encountering their toxicity. These are the kind of people (the females of their contingent) who would scowl at me when I was in a coastal northern city and would make the mistake of looking into their empty eyes.

One potential unintended benefit (yes benefit) is that even fewer men are likely to go to college.

We’ve got zillions of college graduates out there, drowning in debt. At the same time we have shortages of qualified men to take important jobs like welding. For lots of guys, avoiding college could be the best choice they ever make.

In the meantime, proportionally we’ll have far more women with $100,000+ in student debt waiting tables and working at Starbucks.

This crap is but one more reason to get men to work in the skilled trades, important and useful professions that have been neglected and under-respected for far too long.

What I’m asking is, is can the ‘rape-failsafe’ of a Yes Means Yes legal assurance be waived by the individual?

People do this all the time when they sign waivers or enter into legally binding contracts that limit or preclude their right to legal appeal. Non-compete arrangements, software terms of use, even buying a used car “as is” are all examples of this.

Could I draft a ‘boyfriend contract’ under which a woman can waive her legal appeal to YMY, assuming any and all sexual activity is “consensual” for the duration of her notifying that man she is exiting the contract?

This is important, because it creates a distinction in the scope of this new “right” women have, which men (almost unilaterally) do not.

What I’m asking is, is can the ‘rape-failsafe’ of a Yes Means Yes legal assurance be waived by the individual?

People do this all the time when they sign waivers or enter into legally binding contracts that limit or preclude their right to legal appeal. Non-compete arrangements, software terms of use, even buying a used car “as is” are all examples of this.

Could I draft a ‘boyfriend contract’ under which a woman can waive her legal appeal to YMY, assuming any and all sexual activity is “consensual” for the duration of her notifying that man she is exiting the contract?

This is important, because it creates a distinction in the scope of this new “right” women have, which men (almost unilaterally) do not.

You can’t waive crimes, because they are offenses against the state, not against the “victim”. Hence, why the state is your opponent when you are a criminal defendant.

By analogy, this reasoning would also apply in the college rules context. Can’t waive a violation, because the violation is against the uni’s rules, not against the girl.

If she were to bring a civil action in tort for damages or something like that, you *may* have a chance with a waiver argument, but there are so many caveats, and they are state-based, so … see a lawyer if you are worried about being sued in tort for sex.

MartelWe’ve got zillions of college graduates out there, drowning in debt. At the same time we have shortages of qualified men to take important jobs like welding. For lots of guys, avoiding college could be the best choice they ever make.

Most community colleges accept Federal money one way or another. So if this stands in the Cali University system, expect it to filter down to the community colleges in a few years.

@Okrahead: We are literally entering the phase of “When sex is outlawed, only outlaws will have sex.”

I think that’s right. What it comes down to is only a reckless A-hole will be willing to hook up with a girl. On the one hand for a certain tier of woman, that’s desirable. Reckless A-holes are HAWT, right, and they’re always down for a tumble, and if they don’t care about disease or pregnancy or angry daddies, why would a little campus tribunal scare them away from an easy lay? On the other hand, it takes all the greater betas and the more continent breed of alphas completely out of the mix. Sigmas, meanwhile, will be banging off-campus women they meet in non-college bars. Lesser betas, deltas, gammas and the like will be pitched a shutout, since they will be more scared than ever to directly approach women. Creeper betas who play orbiter game will be at a distinct legal risk. A lot of women who don’t want to go the Some Alpha’s Ho route, the serial monogamists and actual monogamists, are going to find it a bit tougher to land men. And, since the best looking women will have their pick of a much smaller pool, the women in the 4-7 range are going to get pitched a shutout more often too. Unhappier women, unhappier men – a true win for feminists everywhere. On the upside, Sandra Fluke isn’t going to need $1200 of birth control pills per year, so there’s that at least.

Novaseeker, would there be any chance for a male plaintiff to sue to overturn the law on the basis of equal protection, I wonder?

In theory, yes, but in practice, no, because Title IX, which is the aegis under which these rules are enacted, has been attacked in litigation and upheld by the courts. Title IX is an ugly, evil, misandrist law that presents a clear and present danger for anyone who has sons. But it is also unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the law of the land, as it currently stands.

Wasn’t a “I give perpetual consent” contract supposed to be called marriage?

But “spousal consent” can no longer be taken for granted. Moreover, I don’t see the courts respecting any such contracts any more than they do pre-nups, which are routinely shredded at some judge’s whim.

“On the other hand, it takes all the greater betas and the more continent breed of alphas completely out of the mix. Sigmas, meanwhile, will be banging off-campus women they meet in non-college bars. Lesser betas, deltas, gammas and the like will be pitched a shutout, since they will be more scared than ever to directly approach women.”

The deltas and gammas like Klein are supporting it on this basis. They want all men to be scared to approach, not just themselves, in order to even the playing field and force women to (finally) take the initiative they are afraid to take themselves.

“Sorry, SSM, but Douthat is quite a leftist masquerading as a social conservative. And, frankly, if that is what a social conservative is, it just underscores the need for more reactionaries.”

Agree with the need. Douthat had great promise, but serves I think as an example of what is at stake here. The article in the link made me sick to my stomach. They got to him. We have to stop that happening.

Agree with the need. Douthat had great promise, but serves I think as an example of what is at stake here. The article in the link made me sick to my stomach. They got to him. We have to stop that happening.

Yes.

He is now a garden variety “SoCon”, which means pretty much worthless on these issues. Ugh. Even worse, I think, than David Brooks.

You misunderstand me, you were claiming that only Christians could avoid this by going MGTOW, or that abandoning the sexual arena will only appeal to Christians..

The second part is your reading into this. I did not say that a person could not be a good Christian bachelor.

Nor did in anyway infer that only the priests can be successful, because based on all the catholic priests I have known (including one with such a bad porn addiction that staff found it on the computers all the time) I would assert that most priests are not successful at all.

IT IS UNNATURAL TO BE A BACHELOR. That being said, yes some men can do it.

As to the second part, if you think what I am saying is poppycock, then you are a fool, and one that has probably led men astray to the snares of this world.

I will say it again, there is no marriage in this fallen world anymore. Its over for now, its an illusion, it is not real.

It is my experience that legal code defines the terms it uses – elsewise the code is meaningless and open to multiple challenges.

If it is true on public college campuses in California, by legal proclomation, that Yes means Yes, surely that legal document contains a definition of what constitutes “Yes”???

Young men need to arm themselves with that / those definition(s) of what constitutes “Yes”, and then document it carefully. No need for video cameras. No need for her to sign a document giving consent. Only a careful documentation of what has occurred that matches the law’s definition of what constitutes “Yes”.

With such documentation in hand, any legal proceedings will immediately be reduced to a “he said, she said”. With him being able to say: “prove that you didn’t do/say these things that the law defines as “Yes”. He has documentation that she did. She probably will have no counter documentation as proof that she didn’t.

Unless it is beyond question that she was drunk when the sexual activity occurred. But how does one prove “drunk” (without a breathalyzer test) in the absence of “passed out”? To defeat the guy’s defense of documentation, she would have to prove that she was drunk. How does she do that, months after the incident in question?

Does the current law contain no definition of what constitutes “Yes”? Then it cannot be applied in any cases brought under it. “I am going to convict you of not matching to standard, without that standard having ever been defined.” When has that approach ever been openly used in American courts?

@ Ra’s al Ghul: “I will say it again, there is no marriage in this fallen world anymore. Its over for now, its an illusion, it is not real.”

Consider 200 couples. Half will get divorced. That means 100 couples will stay married.
* Of the 200 couples, half are women (100)
* Of the 100 couples who get divorced, half are women (50).
* 80% of the divorces will be triggered by women (80% of 50 = 40; 20% of 50 = 10).

Given the current statistics in this fallen world –
Out of 100 married women, 40 will seek a divorce; (50 + 10 = 60) will not.

More women stay in marriage than torpedo it. How, then, do you support your claim that there is no marriage in this fallen world anymore?

(I understand that it is easy to mislead with statistics. I’m just making a simple point using the statistics that are used to claims that marriage as we know it is over. The statistics that are used don’t support the claims being made.)

Richard P:
This isn’t a ‘law’ in the sense that you get to have it applied in the regular legal system. This is a law that applies to the Administrative Hearings (er, Kangaroo Courts) that colleges currently have under the aegis of the 2011 “Dear Collegue” letter and a few widely publicized investigations. It’s kind of like a Civil matter and – because of that- the proponents of it are happy to declare that Due Process doesn’t need to apply. After all , ‘he’ will ONLY be ‘expelled’ from college!

Anyway, I’ve read the thing.
It’s short, and I can assure you it does NOT define its terms whatsoever. It makes no pretense of being a regular ‘law’ and was obviously hardly carefully written from a legal point of view.
This may help the current and future lawsuits, but remember – lawsuits take years.

Anyway, I’ll see if I can dig up a copy of the California Affirmative Consent law again.

Just because people successful cohabitate for a long time does not mean they are married. You can call an apple and orange, but an apple is still an apple, an orange is still an orange. A lie doesn’t become the truth just because people say it is the truth.

Let me illustrate:

Has she given consent to sex any time in the marriage? If yes there is marriage, if not (ie martial rape) then no.

Is the man the head of the household and his word is law? If yes there is marriage, if no there is not.

Can a man discipline his wife or children without being charged? If yes there is marriage, if no there is not.

Is the woman prohibited from entering into contract and create debt for which the man is obligated without his consent? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

If the woman divorces does the man automatically get custody of his children? If yes there is marriage, if not there is no marriage.

Is the only grounds for divorce adultery? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

To go straight up biblical: Neither party have been divorced before? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

I could go on and on.

There is no marriage in the west, there are just people that cohabitate and think they are married. But its not

In America, you can be arrested, but cannot be held without being charged. “Being charged” means crafting a legal statement of what law has been broken.

In America, we do not put people in front of a jury, and then let the jury make up definitions. The jury is informed by the judge of what law the defendant is being charged with breaking. The jury doesn’t get to make that up. Evidence is then presented by both sides that “prove” or “disprove” that the defendant actually broke the law.

Young man is being charged with breaking the “Yes means Yes” law. The jury will be informed by the judge of what actions/behaviors/words constitute “Yes” – as defined by the law. Evidence will be presented by both sides concerning whether the actions/behaviors/words that constitute “Yes” were present during the encounter. The young man who has documented that such actions/behaviors/words were present will have an edge over someone who cannot provide documentation that they weren’t present. Hence – the “he said, she said” situation. Except that the young man has documentation for his assertions and the young woman does not (assuming she doesn’t).

Without a clear definition of what actions/behaviors/words constitute the “Yes” that this law is discussing, there can be no meaningful proof offered to the jury that “Yes” was not given.

This logic will not prevent young men from being wrongfully convicted (juries have been know to disregard fact or simply not understand fact). But it will provide a solid basis for challenges to the law once it starts being implemented.

The Federal Government often uses signs which basically say that this course of action equals consent to this. It’s all over – so if you enter this room, you consent to search, or if you use this system, you agree to that. So the simple solution is to put up signs which say that entry to this dorm room, equals consent to sex. She doesn’t have to come in – she can walk, but most women will come in, so they will agree by their action. That is what they do now – by not fighting, they are agreeing to have sex. They say, “YES” by their actions. So this law will have zero effect, as men learn how to effectively negate it.

Heck, I have signs up at the doors of my house that say the house is under constant surveillance and entry means you agree to it. So I’ll just add a little part that says they also agree to sex. They won’t read it, but having it posted you protect yourself, as you pull out your little sign. The US Government won’t try to over-rule that use of “posted consent” as it would undermine their usage of it. So as with all things – it’s just a question of using the system to benefit yourself.

And if you really care – you can get sensors for your laptop and practice how to beat a poly-graph – it’s not that hard. Then you can say, “I’ll take a polygraph.” The fact that you agree and know you can pass means that you WILL pass, but your lawyer can use it to beat anything any woman says… For a simple reason, every man, and woman knows that women lie – they just don’t like to admit it…

So let them pass whatever they want… Then learn how to use it to your advantage.

A man married to a woman for 15 years. Touches her hand. Then touches her breast without asking permission. She did not consent. That is sexual assault under this standard. And he goes to jail. Remember, the law states that pre-existing relationships and prior sexual encounters do not constitute any evidence whatsoever of consent in a specific case.

It’s a law that makes cuckolding mandatory, or at least legally protected. Wife has sex with bull, consensually, fine. No crime No issue. Wife has sex with husband when she doesn’t say yes beforehand, it’s rape and he is in prison. Like that power dynamic in marriage, all you “sky isn’t falling” bitches?

Novaseeker – I’ve not yet read the link, but Clarence states that the YmY “law” does not define what “Yes” means. Assuming that this is correct, there is no standard that can be in any way violated by your examples. That will be the basis of the attack against this law in California and anywhere else something like it might be applied.

Again, in a legally sane society, you cannot convict someone for failing to match the standard if the standard has not been defined. That is a sound defense.

The division of “half of them are women” is implied by talking about couples already.

However, you forget to then use that 200 couples, instead of the 100 divorcing couples, when you divide 40 and 60 by 100.

So while your percentages are correct, this is due to two different errors that cancel each-other out.

Using your proportions (which I do not claim are correct), 50% of couples will get divorced, and of those, 80% will have those divorces initiated by women. This means that of married couples, 0.5 * 0.8 = 0.4 = 40% of women will initiate divorce with their husbands, and the remaining 60% will not.

Who will see them as false accusers when the accuser doesn’t have to enter the room?

You noted above that we were talking about different time frames. I’m limiting my comments to the university setting. When Brad from the LaCross team or Tappa Kega Brew suddenly has to leave the university, his buddies will know. From there everyone in the know will know exactly who accused Brad of rape and got him kicked out.

The dam of that currently separates the phony private accusation (as private as a daytime talk show, anyways) from the public scrutiny is breaking, and like all watersheds the movement is one way. The flood will wash many men away just as no-fault divorce did…not all, and not most, but how many is too many? Few foresaw yesterday the results we have today of 40% choosing to divorce.

RichardPIn America, you can be arrested, but cannot be held without being charged.

The California “Yes Means Yes” law is administrative, not criminal. No man will be arrested, but any man can be disciplined.

“Being charged” means crafting a legal statement of what law has been broken.

Please read the law. Then get back to us.

In America, we do not put people in front of a jury, and then let the jury make up definitions.

In higher education, we put people in front of administrative hearings where they have no right to an attorney, no right to cross examine witnesses, no right to confront an accuser, no right to a jury, and so forth and so on.

You don’t know what this legislation says, nor how it is to be enforced, suggest you learn more before further argument from a position of not knowing what you are writing about.

The US Government won’t try to over-rule that use of “posted consent” as it would undermine their usage of it. So as with all things – it’s just a question of using the system to benefit yourself.

I’m not a lawyer, but that seems awfully naive. The government and the courts are quite happy to declare that A means A except when it means B. Look at the way an anti-racketeering law got used to keep anti-abortion protesters away from abortion mills. Look at how the interstate commerce clause gets stretched to regulate a farmer selling goods to his next-door neighbor. (In short, by selling to his neighbor, he’s not selling to the open market, which spans across state lines, therefore interstate commerce is affected. Yes, really.) Look how easily they circumvent constitutional limits on….well, everything, when they want to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for turning their evil against them as much as possible; and if you find yourself in a bad spot, you use whatever you can. But if a guy thinks he’s going to go into court with a law/rule that was specifically designed to give women power over men, and say “Gotcha” and turn it against a woman, and the judges/administrators are going to look at each other and shake their heads and say, “Yeah, guess he’s got us; nothing we can do except stick to the letter of the law and find on his behalf,”…. well, I think he’s going to be surprised at how imaginative they can be.

My guess is the dividing line is between those who were in college before vs. after Critical Legal Theory hit (early/mid-nineties). Before, the liberals had the upper hand; after, the illiberal Left. Those used to the former, even conservatives who saw themselves as opposing them, are entirely ill-equipped to deal with the latter.

@dalrock
“When Brad from the LaCross team or Tappa Kega Brew suddenly has to leave the university, his buddies will know. From there everyone in the know will know exactly who accused Brad of rape and got him kicked out.”

Both parties are forced to agree to strict confidentiality about the proceedings (although the woman seems to have more leeway in talking to others to bring them as witnesses – I can’t quite figure out the extent of that). If he was to violate that agreement by telling others what happened, and if the University got wind of it, it would likely find some pretext to announce why he was kicked out, which would really really FAWK him up.

It may be that, in spite of that, word gets around anyway. I really can’t say.

You read enough case law and you’ll find the law that applies to the defendant is not the law that applies to the government. So this does not necessarily protect you.

As Dalrock has pointed out we’re dealing with the campus law for expelling people not how this MAY play out if it becomes part of the criminal law.

Nova is right that this is just the slow spread to get it part of the law for criminal cases, an end run as it were.

I don’t think people realize how criminal law has been eroded in the last 40+ years. You used to have to have criminal intent to be guilty, now you don’t. And DUIs are a prime example of the erosion. There are no defacto DUIs, you’re presumed guilty if you have a breath test over .08. It straight up is : Driving, on public roads, had a blood test that registered .08 or higher.

The blood test isn’t evidence of intoxication, it just is.

There a lot of “rebuttable presumptions” now in criminal cases, ie, shifting the burden to the defendant to “rebut” the presumption. They have been found to be constitutional.

RichardP:

A couple points.

First all a jury needs to convict someone is believing the testimony of the victim and not believing the testimony of the accused. They will get instructed they can give any weight (or none at all) to any witness or any evidence. That’s it. Men have been convicted on the word of one witness alone.

As for defining things, again there is always a subjective measure to these things.

Take self-defense. Just because you claim self defense, doesn’t mean you get off, a jury is instructed to look at it from the point of view of the defendant. “Would a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation believe that the use of force was necessary to defend himself or others and did he use no more than necessary (shooting someone in a fist fight isn’t self defense usually).” There is always a subjective determination by a jury.

Just as it is subjective to believe or not believe a witness to a certain extent.

Trials are not won on evidence alone, they are generally won on emotion. A jury believes a certain way and makes the facts fit in their minds.

Nova:

“Like that power dynamic in marriage, all you “sky isn’t falling” bitches?”

That is the crux of it, it may not make cuckoldry mandatory, but it makes the husband have to swallow whatever shit, including that, his wife, I mean owner, decides to put him through.

Women already behave extremely poorly toward their “spouses” now I can’t even imagine the shit show it will be if this becomes the law for criminal cases.

I already look at the broadening domestic violence definitions as empowering and giving borderline and narcisstic women the green light to be full on demonic with men, this just makes it worse.

Please note that the statute you are reading is not the standard which will be used in campus adjudications. It is the standard by which university policies will be judged. Affirmative consent as defined (not defined) there is the minimum. Of course, the feminist goons are already well placed on campuses to be the ones who will decide how far to actually go.

I can’t imagine a sweeter siren’s song than this to increase the ranks of MGTOW. Women are already complaining that men are ignoring them for video games, porn and bromances and instead of reflecting and correcting, they double down. Har, har, har…

Technology has a way of upsetting apple carts, and the soon to be increasing realism of porn will make these laws an albatross around their necks. Men will be going to work day after day, making money to be use largely for their benefit as opposed to supporting a family. They’ll leave work, hang with friends, go out to eat, come home and plug into some sort of cyber brothel or other, without speaking to any women( bar family, or work related interactions ).

Dalrock“When Brad from the LaCross team or Tappa Kega Brew suddenly has to leave the university, his buddies will know. From there everyone in the know will know exactly who accused Brad of rape and got him kicked out.”

Maybe. Although on a campus of 50,000 or more undergrads, maybe not. Depends on social media most likely. Although as Crank noted, there could be some nondisclosure agreements mandated.

Dalrock, how many Millennials do you know? They are not the same as X or Boom. Some of them are quite compliant and herd/group oriented…

IT IS UNNATURAL TO BE A BACHELOR. That being said, yes some men can do it.

By what definition of “unnatural”? Aquinas’s? Aristotle’s? Last I checked, everybody was told not to fornicate, not just a special select group of people. And if, as you say, marriage isn’t real (which is wrong, but I’ll go with it), then we should not be having sex.

As to the second part, if you think what I am saying is poppycock, then you are a fool, and one that has probably led men astray to the snares of this world.

Yes, I think you’re wrong. Gasp.

I will say it again, there is no marriage in this fallen world anymore. Its over for now, its an illusion, it is not real.

My response is that you don’t know what marriage is then, if you assume that the current culture can make it disappear. Marriage is a Sacrament. It was instituted by God, and it will take more than the influence of idiot feminists and liberals to destroy it.

Ah, wait, here it is:

Has she given consent to sex any time in the marriage? If yes there is marriage, if not (ie martial rape) then no.

I’m not even sure what this means. If a woman NEVEr chooses to consummate…okay. If she does, you’re married.

Is the man the head of the household and his word is law? If yes there is marriage, if no there is not.

Or, there is a bad marriage.

Can a man discipline his wife or children without being charged? If yes there is marriage, if no there is not.

Since when has this been a requirement for the marriage to take place in the first place?

Is the woman prohibited from entering into contract and create debt for which the man is obligated without his consent? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

Since when? When was this a requirement for a valid marriage?

If the woman divorces does the man automatically get custody of his children? If yes there is marriage, if not there is no marriage.

Since when was this a requirement for a valid marriage?

Is the only grounds for divorce adultery? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

I’m a Catholic, but I’ll speak on Protestant terms here. It doesn’t matter what the state says or calls it – if the Bible says divorce can only occur if adultery is committed, then that’s it. The state can claim any number of things, but they don’t invalidate the marriage – nor does a civil divorce.

To go straight up biblical:

Which you should have been doing throughout.

Neither party have been divorced before? If yes there is marriage, if no there is no marriage.

Yep.

There is no marriage in the west, there are just people that cohabitate and think they are married.

Blatantly false. There is marriage, it’s just that what the state sanctions isn’t it. There is a world of difference.

IT IS UNNATURAL TO BE A BACHELOR. That being said, yes some men can do it.

Only in the same way that it’s un-natural to wear clothes, or to refrain from having sex with all the women who offer it up, or to drive a car, or to build a house, or to play a musical instrument. Civilization requires the sublimation of certain instincts into productive channels. Aristotle spoke about this 24 centuries ago. Freud wrote books about it fifty years ago. We’re still figuring it out.

Living a natural life is, in many cases, living an animalistic life. In that regard you’re right, but the “natural” is not really something to aspire to, in my opinion.

On Rollo’s all important question: This is apparently not a State law but some type of administrative ruling affecting colleges. So that means each college will set its own standards of review, standards of what form constitutes valid consent and so on. Very little a lawyer could do in terms of drafting a form that would pass muster with the feminazis populating those boards. They would change the standards at will.

However, after you get kicked out of school you can always pay a lawyer $10,000.000 or so to file a lawsuit against the school and after just 6 years of litigation and another $12,000.00 you might get an order requiring the college to readmit you. Yay! Now you can go to college.

The only rational, sane thing any man in California can do is to videotape all of his sexual encounters. This is probably best played with time stamped verbal consent in your bed holding a cell phone (camera) in one hand and the girl in the other.

Something like: “Ooh Baby, you know I am going to make love to you all night.”
“Yes baby, I want you…wait, are you rec..”

“That’s what this is — women get total and complete power to select the participants, the rules of engagement, and the entire course and scope of the interactions. The woman controls everything. She controls not only when and whether sex happens, but she controls the pace and scope and contours of it; all the way down to which breast gets touched and how and when; down to how many thrusts are permitted, down to how many orgasms he has to give her. He is a life support system for a dildo that she takes off the shelf and uses when she feels like; then tosses aside when she doesn’t.”

I agree with much of your comment, but I get the sense by the last sentence that you’re conflating several different definitions of the word natural. In the Aristotelian sense it shouldn’t mean animalistic, but rather that nothing is working contrary to its primary end.

It is not only that Brad that would be the target Dalrock. Many others will be targeted as AR notes.

Ra’s, marriage is not completely dead, contrary to your claim. It is quite challenging and I am glad I am not at the incoming stage for it, but a few of us are married and reasonably properly balanced. I would go to jail before submitting and I am a relatively clean guy otherwise in life. I could still potentially be hit, but I do not expect that. My marriage has enough bumps because of modern society, but it is not dead. I would guess Dalrock would say better of his marriage and a few others have spoken about theirs in the past.

Things are bad, but they are not completely gone yet.

I do expect a backlash at some point. That will be bigger the longer it is delayed. Just like I expect racial tolerance to evaporate at some point when people get tired of seeing flash mob violence, I expect the same in areas like this.

Some will be more MGTOW, something I don’t support but that I would probably follow today were I single. Others will keep a proper frame and go forward. Many will get messed over, but each one of those is another chink in the dam. The dam can’t take unlimited chips, but it may be more than we think.

I agree with much of your comment, but I get the sense by the last sentence that you’re conflating several different definitions of the word natural.

The “nature” we talk about is a classical latin term which attempted to capture a greek idea: φύσις. This has to do with change and time, and the characteristics that happen without any human thought or rational intervention. (A seed sprouts and becomes a tree, without any rational thought. It simply happens). In that sense, I believe I used the word correctly, though I’m open to further rebuttal.

In the Aristotelian sense it shouldn’t mean animalistic, but rather that nothing is working contrary to its primary end.

εὐδαιμονία is the term you mean, I believe. It’s an interesting peripatetic concept, but not at all what I meant.

When Uncle Ari, in his metaphysics, described man as “rational animal”, he was referring to an underlying tension within us all. We have an animal nature, but we have the ability to control our instincts and sublimate them into accomplishments. This is what Freud talked about in Civilization and its Discontents, and what we’re talking about here. The day when we all “naturally” control our drives and urges will be the day when we understand them, and it’ll probably mark our evolution or transcendence into some other species (leaving behind our “animal” as it were).

“Which is not to say that the new policy won’t have a cultural impact. But its impact, in the scenario I’m sketching, will be akin to the impact of the stories that Fox or MSNBC fasten on to whip up their respective audiences: It will be a distant-seeming outrage that mostly feeds a sense of grievance and persecution among the men who might (but mostly won’t) suffer unjust treatment at the university’s hands. Which means that rather than being a spur to some sort of reborn chivalry or new-model code of male decency, it will mostly encourage the kind of toxic persecution fantasies that already circulate in the more misogynistic reaches of male culture. See, the feminazis really are out to get us, the argument will go, and in bro lore the stories of men railroaded off campus won’t be seen as cautionary tales; they’ll be seen as war stories, martyrologies (in which even actual, clear-as-day predators are given the benefit of the doubt), the latest battle in the endless struggle between the Animal House gang and Dean Wormer … reincarnated now, in our more egalitarian feminist era, as a castrating Nurse Ratched.”
————————————
Anyone interested in couching MRA type arguments in a form palatable to the world outside the manosphere should study how this guy writes.

That’s what this is — women get total and complete power to select the participants, the rules of engagement, and the entire course and scope of the interactions. The woman controls everything. She controls not only when and whether sex happens, but she controls the pace and scope and contours of it; all the way down to which breast gets touched and how and when; down to how many thrusts are permitted, down to how many orgasms he has to give her. He is a life support system for a dildo that she takes off the shelf and uses when she feels like; then tosses aside when she doesn’t.”

This is not enjoyable at all. Woman as stupid as they are regardless of IQ and education hate this. What you described is the route cause of frivorce. Honest loyal and reliable men that care about the needs of their wives are despised by western society at every level from culture, the law and the sexual market place.

@Alex
“Technology has a way of upsetting apple carts, and the soon to be increasing realism of porn will make these laws an albatross around their necks.”
———————–
After having read so-con females writing favorably about YMY combined with the whole ‘scourge of porn ‘addiction” thing coming from so-cons females for years now, expect leftist fems to linkup with so-con females in the near future in order to try and get VR sex tech banned.

Also the recent hornets nest that fems have managed to stir up in gaming can be taken as showing that the fems understand that video game tech will be the platform for VR sex.

Watch as so called ‘sex positive’ feminists drop all such pretenses in favor of a form of backdoor ball-and-chainism.

Why do all these conservatives think that men need to adopt some sort of new male chivalry. It’s not our problem anymore, women disregarded and thrust out the old rules, they didn’t negotiate and now men are free to do as they please. Chivalry is only for virgins or chaste wives. That’s it, not for college skanks.

This is merely an attempt to control men, a futile attempt because the ‘he said, she said’ argument will basically kill any and all attempts to frame men. Just keep stating that she said ‘yes’. If one actually reads the law, it isn’t much different, besides the having to get ‘affirmative confirmation’ at the beginning of an encounter, than what is currently in place. If the woman does anything that can be reasonably taken to mean consent, including taken your clothes off or kissing you or any number of preambles to sex, she then has to revoke the man in a matter that he can readily ascertain. She cannot agree to sex, have sex and then state she wanted to stop half way through.

This law is wrong but you don’t have to suffer for it if you stick to your guns and deny, deny, deny. Well… you won’t suffer more than if an accusation was brought against you before the law was drawn up.

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

If a drunk woman tries to seduce you, you have the right and must report it as a sexual assault. Do not hesitate for a second.

” .. it will mostly encourage the kind of toxic persecution fantasies that already circulate in the more misogynistic reaches of male culture. “
is he suggesting that the hapless lovelorn beta swain is going to have to broaden his pre-campus skillset then?
Seeing as how he might as well be hung for a sheep as a for lamb, and this way may contain just the tiniest chance of avoiding the certain conviction after a secret trial and eternal punishment that co-operating with The Authorities entails?
viz :-
“Chat up likely lass in your class > make a date, bring flowers > candlelit meal, couple of cocktails > proceed to the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue after the necessary permissions have been obtained > declare eternal love and commitment > breakfast > hide the body in the woods, flee the country”

Oh well, I suppose co-education was a high-minded but profoundly silly experiment, for as long as it lasted.

On this very day Ched Evans the Soccer International (Wales and Sheffield United) has been released from prison following his 2012 conviction for Rape. The brief circumstances were that a young woman (somewhat inebriated) allowed herself – indeed sought – to be taken back to the hotel room of Mr Evans and his black team mate where she had sex with both of them consecutively rather that concurrently. The next morning this woman cried regret double-rape but only Mr Evans was convicted. Evans – who is also very good looking – is vowing to clear his name and his family are attacking the charity ‘Rape Crisis’ (sic erat).

Eventually this sexual holocaust will end – though not I think before women cease to think that they can with impunity go back to the hotel room or dorms of normal albeit hormonal young men. Those who think that being Alpha will protect them are clearly mistaken, for Evans would surely have easily passed that test.

For those who cannot resist my writings I had a lot to say about Evans at the Spearhead in 2012 and more recently at that same blog about the fascinating case of Agnes Amelia Marable (from 1883) showing that these false accusations from women who get in over their head are nothing new any more than is white-knighting of their behaviour.

And of course, look at the outcry about what Judy Finnigan said about this case…
Even after he has served his prison time she is not allowed to say that he can have his old job back. Whatever happened to ‘forgiveness’ for a man who has served his time?
These same women will plead ‘don’t judge me!’ even when they have NOT served time for their crimes…
The dishonesty is staggering…

“If a drunk woman tries to seduce you, you have the right and must report it as a sexual assault. Do not hesitate for a second.”

Nice try at black knighting, but it won’t work. You see, that’s what the old biddies are saying . They’re waving their hands, shrieking about how this law is sex-neutral and how men will have the right and duty to report females sexually assaulting them, and how women who sexually assault men are equally in jeopardy.

Their claims are ridiculous and absurd.

This law will never be applied to anyone other than straight men in their dealings with women. It will never be applied to gay or lesbian relationships. It will never be applied only to cases of penetration or attempted penetration. It will never be applied only to cases of drunken hookups.

It will be applied only to unattractive, awkward men engaged in botched or clumsy advances. It will be applied to even the most innocuous statements/activities. It will be applied to male escalation, but only if the girl is unattracted. It will be applied to male escalation for the express purpose of giving a woman complete and total control over the entirety of the interactions between her and all men.

It will be applied only when a girl gets blasted and goes home with a guy she thinks is an alpha; but instead is the geeky, equally blasted dude from her Chem 101 class, and the sex was 100% consensual. It will be applied only when a girl regrets the sex for whatever reason. It will be applied only when a relationship goes south, and the girl wants to get rid of the guy.

That’s what this law is for. It is not to prevent drunk sex; nor is it intended to govern only “penetration”.

Again: This is why I keep saying that if a woman is interested in a man, she must make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that she is. She has to bang him over the head with IOIs. She has to make it so clear and so unmistakable that even the most awkward, Spergy guys will “get it”. Otherwise, men are not going to take the risks.

I haven’t been following the case really closely and I don’t know if the allegations of sexual molestation have any merit. But it looks and sounds fishy to me.

Collins is a film and TV actor who’s had a good run over the past 30 years or so. He’s been working steadily from what I can see. Squeaky clean image; takes roles which burnish that image. Doesn’t drink, carouse or f*ck around.

But he’s in a nasty, protracted divorce from “actress” Faye Grant, to whom he’s been married for quite a while. Yeah, she worked up until she was around 30 or so until the mid 9os, I guess, was in that miniseries “V” back in the mid 80s. That’s how Grant made her chops. She’s a good looking woman, but as an actress or a talent, she’s nothing special, frankly – there’s a thousand other aging actresses just like her. She hasn’t had high profile or high paying acting work for quite a while, from what I can see. She’s not a stage actress and didn’t get experience in NY or London or other major metro theatre.

These allegations about Collins surfaced because Grant publicized them, according to news reports. So, what does this look like to me? Collins is the one with the money. The marriage is over; Grant is looking to cash in. Grant leaks what may or may not be a bogus story to apply pressure on her soon to be ex husband to pay up. If Collins, a well known actor and TV personality, really molested someone(s) a few decades ago, why is this JUST NOW coming out? Why weren’t cops stomping his guts out then? Why weren’t lawyers turning him upside down and wallet-raping him then? Collins is well known, but he’s not A-list. He doesn’t have the cash or the clout to fend off credible sex abuse claims. And he can’t be that stupid to think that he, a famous successful actor with a distinctive face and voice, and deep pockets of money to boot, could get away with sexually abusing kids.

It is very difficult: In the days when I played Soccer (the local team) we had a player – one of our better players – who had apparently been convicted of that very crime – Rape. Something must have been lost in the telling for he still had his liberty but we had a long and passionate discussion in the club-house as to whether he should be allowed to re-join the team. I took the view that you take; that it was not for us to add to his punishment, but some of the others in true mangina white-knight mode were having none of it.

I trust Mr Evans re-joins United (and that his conviction is in due course successfully appealed – the little slut being named and shamed).

“Watch as so called ‘sex positive’ feminists drop all such pretenses in favor of a form of backdoor ball-and-chainism.”

Oh, the law is still sex-positive, in fact it makes it mandatory (forbidding coyness – gotta level the playing field for those sluts), but as Dalrock has noted only sex in the female-approved way: within the bonds of the Holy Relationship.

There is nothing back-door about it. It’s Shotgun Monogamy, and intended to be so. The gammas and delta support it because they can’t wait to be thrown in that briar patch. As usual, they’ll be disappointed…

There is one way to get a guaranteed consent from a woman is to pay her for it. Therefore, you can always claim that the financial transaction implied continous consent throughout the intimate moments a couple are together.

But ultimately women will lose, as they are anyway, once their SMV and attractiveness plummets, and when that happens even those betas and omegas who they are able to fall back on today will not dare to bother with them at all. The shortsightedness of feminism is a wonder.

There is something which is being over looked, and that is the fact that this is all backwards and men are blindly buying the whole “women own erotic capital”. The fact is sex cannot happen without the consent of men. How? Its simple, for sex to happen a man must have an erection, on the woman’s side there isn’t any physical prerequisite for intercourse to take place either than that her vagina isn’t sewn shut. I am astonished that men have forgotten this simple fact.

Think about it, biologically it is the man who has the power of choice because it is him who decides which woman he wants to put his cock into. All me know full well, that a woman cannot force an erection out of a man if he has made a clear decision not to be seduced by her.

This is also why there is no such thing as male rape, because an erection is a form of consent. Once a man has an erection and he puts it in the woman there is no way to determine he was forced to do so not unless he was fed Viagra and physically bound so as to not be able to flee from the would be rapist This is why

Erections can occur involuntarily, Leonidas, unless you’ve never had ‘morning wood’.
They can also occur as the result of drugging or even fear in some cases.
Lastly, if an ugly female puts a gun to my head unless I put it in her and I am able to ‘get it up’ by imagining someone else, I dare say that I haven’t ‘consented.

And even though you deny male rape is possible for anyone he penetrates , what about if a female or male penetrates him? Did you ‘consent to sex’ if she ties you up and penetrates you with a broomstick? If some bigger guy buggers you?

And then there’s cases where either the male doesn’t have hair on his nuts (statuatory by any definition) or is downright passed out and unconscious.
His penis might still respond to stimuli, but I dare say that neither a preadolescent boy nor a passed out adult man can consent to sex. Yet women have won child support in such cases.

* this is why those high school teachers who bang teen boys get a slap on the wrist where as men go to jail and lose their job. Men have been completely robbed of their naturally given headship in the realm of sex. Men today have fallen so far that they believe the foolish idea that a woman give them sex. So blinded are men that some even beg, ask and whine. Men thee is no need ever in your life to ask for sex, I mean wtf is this nonsense?

So this “yes is yes” law or whatever it is shouldn’t be of any concern because men hold the cards no matter what feminists do. But what they can do is create a media machine that will make men believe that the act of sex is a woman’s discretion. Men need to wake up and understand the sheer level of supremacy that nature and God have given males over females. Woman are completely at our mercy, our ancestors knew this full well and acted accordingly in line with natures statutes.

If you think I am exaggerating, take this into consideration; even the one thing which women can do which men can’t (give birth) cannot happen unless a man consents to do so. Even sperm banks exist because men, although foolishly, consent to give their seed for a fee.

They can’t stop us from being men, and neither can they take away from us what they didn’t give, but they are surely making sure that we never see the true value of what we have.

I am writing a book on this topic, men need to seriously wake the fuck up. And I mean really.

I actually disagree that “clothes” are unnatural. We are a social animal, and even if the current civilization collapsed, people would form into communities that would have rules, people have always done that.

What I meant by unnatural, is that it is natural for the human to seek out human contact and companionship and sex. That the inability to engage in sexual relations impacts a human being in a myriad of ways, often unhealthy.

If it didn’t, women wouldn’t with hold it to control the behavior of men. Like I said I have known plenty of catholic priests and almost all of them give off an unnatural vibe and most people know what I mean.

One of the ones that didn’t had a porn addiction. Go figure.

As for my marriage is dead.

You all are “married” for as long as the woman in your life says you are. If she divorces you and you’re catholic, you’ll probably find out from your church that you were never married. I’ve seen that happen, repeatedly.

For the one that was arguing that if you never had sex you’re not married, you are missing the point, it is not whether you consummated your marriage, it is whether she controls the sex spigot through the course of the relationship.

If she has withheld sex from you are not married, you’re in the new relationship of the modern era.

My point with all those questions, is how vastly different what is called marriage is today from what marriage was. It doesn’t really exist, you’re just in a facsimile.

A committed relationship no different than a longer term boyfriend girlfriend with nasty repercussions if it ends.

Alex @ October 16, 2014 at 8:07 pm:
“Women are already complaining that men are ignoring them for video games, porn and bromances and instead of reflecting and correcting, they double down.”

Women aren’t doubling down, the elites are doubling down… putting more weapons in the hands of moral children. Women are told they want this system and it’s an easy lie for them to believe.

Why men aren’t getting politically involved en masse is beyond me. Waiting for the totalitarians to weary of their games isn’t working. Let’s quarantine Africa and send our missionaries into the halls of power instead!

“there is no way to determine he was forced to do so not unless he was fed Viagra and physically bound so as to not be able to flee from the would be rapist

Woohoo! Timeslip! That takes me back .. Joyce McKinney, downhill skiing, Sex In Chains ..
of course back in them days weren’t no such thing a Viagry, just Spanish Fly, or like her, a good ol’ ham shank and blow-dry.

Don’t mean to intrude on private grief, but are you quite sure you’re a bloke? I mean, as pointed out above, you seem remarkably uninformed on the specifics of the mechanism.

> My point with all those questions, is how vastly different what is called marriage is today from what marriage was.

That is a different point. Dead means dead, not radically changed.

It is there and can be obtained by some. The fact that it can be unilaterally nuked with support from the outside doesn’t make it dead, just endangered. The risk is huge and likely not worth taking for many or potentially even most, but that is a different issue.

What is posted there seems so much at odds with the other messages he made. I can agree with a lot of what was posted under the Wallace name, though I can see how it would be quite at odds with the Seattle area.

You all are “married” for as long as the woman in your life says you are.

She can claim she’s divorced you and act as if she divorced you all she wants, but that doesn’t mean she did.

If she divorces you and you’re catholic, you’ll probably find out from your church that you were never married. I’ve seen that happen, repeatedly.

That’s probably true in a lot of cases, but the number of annulments granted is so astronomically high now that I’d bet money that whatever the American Church tribunals say most annulments should not be granted. Just because a Church tribunal decides to agree with you that a marriage is annulled, doesn’t mean it is.

Most of that list had nothing to do with the validity of a marriage. It had to do with the quality of the marriage. But just because you’ve stuck yourself in a bad situation does not mean you’re not married. There is a spiritual as well as legal quality to marriage that liberals and feminists can’t wave their wands and magic away.

…And not to mention, most people don’t even try to get annulments. They just divorce. And if you *just* civilly divorce, with no annulment, then you’re still married until and unless you can prove otherwise.

To understand “yes means yes”, one must understand how women view their assets. Women view their “assets” like a car salesman views his cars (his assets). When a potential customer walks on the lot, what happens in the car salesman’s mind? Why, he immediately tries to figure out the best way to manipulate the buyer into spending as much as possible. Why? Commissions. He doesn’t care what kind of car you want. What he cares about is how much he’s going to make in the transaction. He doesn’t care about you at all. Nevertheless, he’s going to treat you like a long lost brother. He’s going to say and do whatever he has to do to buy his car. Now, if during this transaction, he figures out that you can’t afford to buy his car, then notice how his attitude towards you changes. If he’s desperate for a commission and you’re desperate for a car, he’s going to try to lock you into a high interest deal on a “previously owned” model. Think single mother with kids.

Women view themselves like car salesmen view their cars. How do I know this? Women want to marry up. If they marry up and a BBD comes along, they want to trade up. Women know that their “car” is a time sensitive, depreciating asset. When you drive a car off the lot, what happens? It loses a big chunk of its value, right? As you drive it around, it loses more of its value. After a while, and many, many miles, the car is pretty darn worthless, right? And people wonder why women use ignorant, naïve men for financial gain. Too funny.

Now, imagine if a car salesmen (or should I say, salespeople) had a “yes means yes” law that applied to test driving his assets. Imagine if after giving you the demo ride of your life, you decided not to call him back or buy his car. Imagine if he could claim that you didn’t have consent to drive his car in the first place. Imagine what would happen to you if he claimed that you physically attacked and forced the keys from him and drove his car without permission.

It’s all so simple. If you create a law that mandates purchase of the vehicle after the test drive vs. imprisonment, far fewer will chance the test drive unless they’re really serious about driving the car.

How would this prospective stitch-up affect the treatment of low-value undergraduettes?
Since the chilling effect inhibits the few remaining average frustrated “ordinary”, “civilized” boys bold enough to give it (approaching) a whirl under the influence of dutch courage, it sends the value of the standout attractive(bad-ish) boys to the moon.
As pointed out by wiser heads above, They’ll be surfing a wave of eager snatch, spinning plates, operating de facto seraglios and won’t much care for the consequences if the goods are of acceptable quality.
But if they’re hounded by uggos and warpigs who are being dodged by their natural prey, despairing yet self-preserving betas, will the top-level guys sick the girls of their clutch of FWBs on them or what? Will the mean girls who got themselves a slice of alpha drive them off? Cease and desist? Banning orders?

It looks like any accidental or meaningful, non-chaperoned human level interaction with a homely female reject intent on scoring will result in the witch-finding process being triggered if rebuffed.
Or will desperate neckbeard incels continue to be too dumb to give them the bodyswerve?

“It looks like any accidental or meaningful, non-chaperoned human level interaction with a homely female reject intent on scoring will result in the witch-finding process being triggered if rebuffed.
Or will desperate neckbeard incels continue to be too dumb to give them the bodyswerve?”

Soon, there will be a push to redefine domestic abuse in term of denying monetary resources in cohabitation and marriage and to redefine cohabitation in terms of palimony (alimony for and asset division for cohabiting women). Several “developed nations” have already enacted such policies and laws. Most developed nations are moving toward the same ends. Though their birth rates and marriage rates are tanking, they still have mass immigration! Go Nordic Economic Model!

There’s no difference between a feminist and an anti-feminist. They’re two sides of the same coin. Both hope to eschew the aspects of “the patriarchy” that don’t benefit women while holding onto the aspects of the patriarchy that do. That men should sacrifice their lives and happiness for women is an expectation of both. Naïve, ignorant men (90% of the male population) won’t understand this. Why? They’ve been brainwashed into being self-sacrificing white knights. How? Through the media. Which superhero do you envy most?

You just emphasized the rationale behind everything I’ve written thus far.

“You are confused about the reality of women.”

I think not. Across the globe, in developed nations, marriage and birth rates are tanking. This requires massive immigration. At the same time, feminism is spreading to less developed nations. Feminism is synonymous with low marriage and birth rates. What do you think is going to happen when there are no less developed nations from which to cull?

““But gynocentric ciivilizations don’t seem to last, for some reason.”

You just emphasized the rationale behind everything I’ve written thus far.

“You are confused about the reality of women.”

I think not. Across the globe, in developed nations, marriage and birth rates are tanking. This requires massive immigration. At the same time, feminism is spreading to less developed nations. Feminism is synonymous with low marriage and birth rates. What do you think is going to happen when there are no less developed nations from which to cull?”

I understand women very, very well. You see – feminism is the equivalent of Ebola. It destroys everything it touches.

As others have pointed out above, there is no exemption for married couples. Nor should we expect one, because feminists believe that most rapes are committed within marriage.

Even if we are not interested in “creating rules of the road for fornication”, we should at least be interested in the rules of the road for marriage.

The bill says “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

In practical terms it is impossible to obtain an “affirmative consent” that will stand up in court. Assertion that consent was given can be negated by “he said, she said”. If written consent is obtained for each sexual act, there is no way to show in court that it was not obtained by duress. A wife will regard it as beneath her dignity to sign a consent form for each act; a fornicator will be reluctant to do so, firstly because it offends her “slut defenses”, and secondly because she will not want the man to keep the document as a trophy: but keep it he must, because she can make a legal challenge at any time, even decades later.

Any legislator with half a brain will have realised all this; he/she will also have realised that it doesn’t matter, because the purpose of the law is not to reduce sexual assault or rape: the purpose is to humiliate men and to empower women. It is to elevate a woman’s feelings about her sexual activity, particularly after the end of a relationship, above mere facts such as consent and personal responsibility. The real purpose is to get men, particularly the nerdy beta men who overachieve at University, expelled, so that a larger share of higher education places and well-paid jobs are made available to women.

This is why everyone should oppose this law; and why men who are applying to University should avoid California, unless they plan to remain celibate for the duration of their course.

@evilwhitemalempire:
Such technology can’t be controlled like by legislation, given that it will have wide applications outside of pornography. If they should bar the sale of pornographic content, it will just show up on torrent sites(which have only grown despite lawsuits intended to frighten the users) from overseas outlets, digitally copied and distributed.

If it doesn’t exist, it will be created once the hardware becomes commonly available. I don’t generally use these terms, but if the prime attribute of an ‘alpha’ is force, the prime attributes of a ‘beta’ are creativity and discipline. If an army of horny betas can create something like Linux and distribute it freely, how much more effort will be poured into virtual porn? And government won’t be even more ineffective in stopping virtual porn than they’ve been stopping the flow of drugs.

“This is why everyone should oppose this law; and why men who are applying to University should avoid California, unless they plan to remain celibate for the duration of their course.”

I’m sorry JK. You seem get it from the front end, but you don’t seem to get if from the back end (that end being your @$$). “yes means yes” will be pushed up to the criminal justice level, just like VAWA. All universities are already contemplating implementing “yes means yes”. Soon, “yes means yes” will be the law of the land, just like VAWA (THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEVEL). You do know that you can be ejected from your home now if your wife claims you yelled at her, right? You do know that your ejection can mean a class 1 misdemeanor or felony assault charge, right? What happens after that, James? You can’t get a job. You’re tossed to the street to become the next evolution of the heroic loser. What happens after you’ve been tossed out of school after a false rape charge, James? You’re ruined for life. You become the next evolution of the heroic loser.

I think you are. Your car lot analogy assumes large numbers of women in their early 20’s desiring marriage right now. Do you know any women in that age group, and if so do you know any who are panting for marriage? I know people in that age group in both social and professsional settings, and the only early 20’s women I know or know of who are actively searching for a man to marry are very serious churchgoers.

On the other hand I can find any number of college aged women who are having too much fun riding the cock carousel to settle down. They are the cars that invite men in for a drive.

You should really go read the article at Rollo’s and study it.

I”m fully aware of all the other stuff you referred to, and it has nothing, but nothing, to do with the hookup scene or the YesMeansYes tyranny.

I think you are. Your car lot analogy assumes large numbers of women in their early 20’s desiring marriage right now. Do you know any women in that age group, and if so do you know any who are panting for marriage? I know people in that age group in both social and professsional settings, and the only early 20’s women I know or know of who are actively searching for a man to marry are very serious churchgoers.

On the other hand I can find any number of college aged women who are having too much fun riding the cock carousel to settle down. They are the cars that invite men in for a drive.

You should really go read the article at Rollo’s and study it.

I”m fully aware of all the other stuff you referred to, and it has nothing, but nothing, to do with the hookup scene or the YesMeansYes tyranny.”

Why do you insist on cementing the truth in everything I post? That women are starting their “women don’t want to marry” campaign, just now, at the lowest point in marriage history, is just a continuation of their “marriage is slavery campaign”. Stats show that more women desire marriage while more men abhor it. Women think they can convince men to marry if they can convince men that women don’t want to marry? GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! HAVE FUN WITH YOUR CATS!

Why would women want to marry if marriage was slavery? It’s like the car salespeople saying that “We don’t really want to sell cars anymore! We never did! HA HA! We knew you were just using us for transportation.” Now, imagine men saying the same thing. “You women just use men for their penises! You don’t want commitment! You only want ejaculation!” How stupid would that be, right?

What I am looking forward to, and I’m sure it will happen (perhaps it already has started), is certain bloggers-writers-commenters will say of the various horribly unjust speculative scenarios posted here and elsewhere “No way, that will never happen, typical overreaction, reductio ad absurdum, etc. Crazy MRAs and other assorted male losers jump to the worst possible conclusions about this necessary, sensible law.” Then when actual cases start to get reported, many of which will look exactly like the doomsday scenarios we’ve speculated about, those same people will say “Totally justified, what a rapey creep, he deserves what he gets, the system is working.”

Why do you insist on cementing the truth in everything I post? That women are starting their “women don’t want to marry” campaign, just now, at the lowest point in marriage history, is just a continuation of their “marriage is slavery campaign”

This contradicts your “car lot” analogy. Try to keep up with your own argument, ok?

And here it is, ladies and gents! The future of the world! This post was immortalized by Sandman himself. I posted it as Tao a while back. Since then, I’ve been banned by at least three or four dozen times on other sites. I don’t care what you think of my post. This post is your future! BAN ME!

Women are quite happy to depend on the government if the father doesn’t meet her expectations. Men are quite happy too, as higher taxes are a lot better than complete financial annihilation through divorce. Governments love higher taxes. Many same sex couples are going to want children. As the decline in heterosexual “marital” relationships continues, and it will, more and more will opt for same sex relationships and/or domestic partnerships/cohabitation. Traditionalist views on relationships will gradually become extinct. Polygamist like relationships and/or the broad acceptance of polygamist domestic partnerships amongst heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals and lesbians will become more popular as well.

Female empowerment means that there are fewer men capable of providing for a family. Women want the highest paying, most prestigious, most powerful jobs for themselves. At the same time, women want to marry up. As divorce is nearly a death sentence for breadwinning males, men are opting out of marriage and family. More and more, women will find that they’ll have to go it alone.

Jobs have been shipped overseas so that corporations can benefit from cheaper labor costs. Engineering and high tech jobs are being filled by H1-B visa workers so that corporations can benefit from cheaper labor costs. Jobs that can be outsourced to stagnate wages are being outsourced. Mass immigration of low skilled workers is being used to stagnate wages and fill entry level jobs. Jobs are being contracted out by both the government and corporations to create a disposable workforce and to forgo the higher cost of directly employing workers. Both corporations and the government conspire to divide and destroy society through mass immigration, outsourcing, H1-B visas and division of the populace via race, gender, wealth and age.

Most every bread winning man now knows the devastating consequences that divorce can have on their lives. The result of divorce is often severe psychological, emotional, legal, physical and financial destruction. For these reasons, men will continue to opt out of marriage and family or resort to cohabitation as a lessor of the two evils. As women become the majority of breadwinners, and they will, they’ll feel the same way. Feminism taught women that marriage was slavery. Breadwinning men now know that marriage is a death trap.

The national debt will continue to rise. Entitlement programs will go bankrupt. Eventually, a tipping point will be reached and there will be a call to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Efforts to accomplish this are already underway. The negative consequences that will follow are unthinkable.

The liberal/feminist model of heterosexual marriage has and will continue to fail. Most men aren’t going to allow themselves to be ruled by women in relationships. Women think they want to have power over men in relationships, but have no respect for and are repulsed by the men that aren’t at least their equal in terms of education, finances and social standing. Both sides under the liberal/feminist model are far more promiscuous, more likely to commit adultery and more likely to indulge in infidelity – even in the face of STDs. The playing field for the worst in human behavior is level under the feminist/liberal model.

To sustain the population, prop up the GDP through population growth and to save the entitlement programs, the only solution from the government’s standpoint is mass welfare and tax breaks for single mothers and/or mass immigration. As xenophobia is common everywhere, the preferred method is going to be the mass acceptance of single motherhood and a massive increase in services for single mothers. How? Through higher taxes and/or the diversion of tax funds. More resources will be dedicated to same sex couples under this expanding model as well. This change is social values has been around for a while, is the norm in certain countries and will eventually become the norm across the globe.

As time marches on, fewer and fewer will marry, out of wedlock births will become the majority, polygamy will be legalized, same sex marriage will become more popular and children raised by same sex couples will become widely accepted. The alternative is the threat of massive population decline like that found in Japan. A return to a “traditional culture” like that of the ’50s is highly unlikely for obvious reasons.

As marriage/birth rates continue to decline, huge increases in spending on single mothers will ensue. It already has in several countries. As time passes, greater and greater efforts to enact legislation that benefits women at the expense of men’s lives will increase. Even though women already have enormous gynocentric privilege through current laws and policies, ever more misandric legislation is currently being pushed across the globe.

Marriage and birth rates are tanking in Japan, Singapore, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Scandinavia, Canada, the UK, parts of the Middle East, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Hong Kong, S. Korea, the US, etc. Mass immigration partially hides these facts. Parts of the Netherlands and Scandinavia are widely touted as social utopias in American mainstream media. What’s not talked about by the mainstream media is the declining marriage/birth rates, high taxes, high cost of goods, the increase in misandry through legislation and social upheaval due to mass immigration. What’s not talked about is that, where mass immigration is used to counter low marriage/birth rates, what follows is social upheaval, unsustainable spikes in welfare costs, the formation of xenophobic immigrant communities, the illegal implementation of laws within these communities (Sharia – for example) and a disproportionate increase in crime emanating from these communities.

Because of the above, the push for ever more misandric laws will increase. Why? Because women make the babies and women won’t have the same power over men that they had through marriage. Cohabitation reform (aka: palimony) is going to come soon to force transfer of wealth from men to women. This is already being proposed in the UK and other places. Redefining domestic abuse in marriage/cohabitation in terms of bullying and denying monetary resources is also being pushed in the UK and other places. Why? To force the transfer of resources from men to women.

In the future, about 20-30 percent will marry and have children within wedlock. The vast majority of births will occur outside of wedlock and marriage for most will become a thing of the past. In the US, 40% of births are already out of wedlock and marriage rates will continue the decade’s long decline. Singles in the US are now the majority.

As a result of the above, massive shifts in social spending will be devoted to single mothers. This has already happened and will escalate globally. Policies and laws will also shift heavily in favor of single mothers.

This is how deeply gynocentric, liberal, misandric, feminist societies operate, folks. Iron fisted socialism will become the norm globally. You think capitalism is bad? Wait until you see how socialism works. If you don’t know how socialism works, there are plenty of historical examples from which to learn. Buckle up.

MGTOW screws it all up. That’s why MGTOW are left alone. That’s why no one wants to touch them. To engage the MGTOW is the same thing as engaging your downfall. You get it now, don’t you?

Cosign the above rant by Gratis Ptaka, with some reservation. Primarily I agree with these final words;

“MGTOW screws it all up. That’s why MGTOW are left alone. That’s why no one wants to touch them. To engage the MGTOW is the same thing as engaging your downfall. You get it now, don’t you?”

As long as men in large numbers continue to volunteer for the extremely legally disproportionate arrangement the system, culture and joke ass churches call ‘marriage’ there won’t be any significant changes in the direction of justice. However if men in significant numbers refused to participate in the current garbage LTR/ marriage change in the favor of men would be guaranteed. Young single men are the real human power in this world. It’s right there for the taking if me would just wake up. Breaking the back of this snake only takes the will of men to do it.

“Why do you insist on cementing the truth in everything I post? That women are starting their “women don’t want to marry” campaign, just now, at the lowest point in marriage history, is just a continuation of their “marriage is slavery campaign”

This contradicts your “car lot” analogy. Try to keep up with your own argument, ok?”

Not OK. If that’s the best you have to offer, you need to pick another opponent. I slaughtered you in every logical way. You lost. Suck it up and pick a weaker opponent. If I were a woman, I might have chosen to lower myself to the level of kiss @$$ you might have wanted. Ain’t going to get it here, *****! Find another sucker!

Logic doesn’t care what you claim to be “ok” or not. Your car lot analogy implies that young women are eager to marry in their early 20’s, your other rant contradicts that. When you contradict yourself, your argument is moot.

If that’s the best you have to offer, you need to pick another opponent. I slaughtered you in every logical way. You lost. Suck it up and pick a weaker opponent. If I were a woman, I might have chosen to lower myself to the level of kiss @$$ you might have wanted. Ain’t going to get it here, *****! Find another sucker!

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Might want to spend some time studying logic.

I knew that VAWA allowed a woman to phone the police and get her husband removed from their home (just because she feels uncomfortable with him there, no yelling is required), but I did not know this amounted to a crime on his part. Isn’t a conviction in court needed?

I tried to read VAWA once, so I could understand what Americans were arguing about; but I gave up, because the Act is extremely long, and much of it is amendments to other legislation. It is incomprehensible unless you are a criminal lawyer. I doubt that VAWA was read and understood by most of those in Congress who voted on it. My abiding impression is that VAWA is not really about violence against women: its real purpose is something different.

These University regulations are particularly perverse because they are intended to coexist with frat house parties and the hookup culture. Feminist lawyers and campus administrators will be rubbing their hands with glee, waiting for a succession of disciplinary hearings against unfortunate 18-year-old men who will be starting with a presumption of guilt that is almost impossible to overturn.

The only chance of proving consent would be secret video recordings of one’s sexual activity; but I expect this is a criminal offence too.

“Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Might want to spend some time studying logic.”

I want no part of your logic. I know the depths from which you draw your destruction. I’m your antithesis. I’m your worst logical nightmare. I’m the person you don’t want in your head. I’m that someone that you can’t manipulate. Tell me more about yourself. Help me understand you. I want to know you, deeply.

Women view their “assets” like a car salesman views his cars (his assets).

Are you visiting us from 1950? People generally don’t give their “assets” away to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who gives them a tingle. A car salesman who acted like today’s woman would let every prospective buyer take a car for a 1-100 week test drive — and the grubbier and least credit-worthy the customer, the longer he’d get to keep the car. Then, when the car had a couple hundred thousand miles on it, he’d give it a new paint job and roll the odometer back to 99,000 and try to get some sucker to pay full price for it.

Women today don’t want to marry — until they hit the wall — and they treat their sexuality like a baseball glove — the more you slap it around and stretch it out, the better it works. They don’t treat it as an asset at all, so all the conclusions you draw from that premise are upside-down, even though several of the statements you make along the way are correct.

No, this won’t cut down on “test drives.” That’s the whole point of this post: tradcons think it will, because they think men are the only ones deciding when sex happens, and women are just innocently along for the ride. But men aren’t only, or even primarily, the ones making that decision. No law that tries to tamp down male libido will make any difference when women are out there throwing sex at whatever attractive man comes along. At most, it’ll scare away some men at the margins, but the thugs will happily take their place, and the women won’t mind that at all.

James – Listen to my advice and listen good. You will not have truer words spoken to you. I know who you are. You’re a good person that’s looking for a way in life. Save yourself and save others. Woman are not your friends. Men are not your friends. I’m not your friend. Many have suffered through placing their trust in unjust beings. You yourself have betrayed. You and I both know this.

#1 – Build a life for yourself that you can look upon in later years as something you did right.

That’s it.

What can destroy #1?

#1 – You cannot put your faith in another. If you believe in God, then put your faith in Him.

That’s it. Have faith in Him and have faith in you. Read about the apostle Paul.

I’m always grateful when someone loudly declares that he has no interest in reasonable discussion and no intention of engaging in it, so I can go ahead and block his comments to avoid wasting any more time. Much appreciated.

“At most, it’ll scare away some men at the margins, but the thugs will happily take their place, and the women won’t mind that at all.”

This, believe it or not, is a good thing. Ever wonder why Detroit is a dead city? So many variables, right?

We can all learn from the past, cant we? If you said yes, then you are wrong. What’s lusted after most is what dooms our souls. Billions will perish with only fractional understanding of what’s been written. Billions live in misery today because they have zero clue what will bring them happiness. You, Cail, can tell them what will bring them happiness. You, Cail, are the cornerstone in the next state of being for civilization. Cail, you can turn it all around. You can reverse the tide of destruction in humanity. How can you do this Cail?

Try a little humility, brah. Accept that you’re as much a part of the problem as the solution. If you can accomplish this feat, Cail, you’ll be lusted after by all women. After you’ve been lusted after, Cail, all I want to know from you is this: Is being lusted after by all women an enviable goal? Don’t tell me now. Tell me later.

“I’m always grateful when someone loudly declares that he has no interest in reasonable discussion and no intention of engaging in it, so I can go ahead and block his comments to avoid wasting any more time. Much appreciated.”

“What is posted there seems so much at odds with the other messages he made. I can agree with a lot of what was posted under the Wallace name, though I can see how it would be quite at odds with the Seattle area.”

We’ll never know now. Maybe the men there were just waiting to hear the truth preached.

To be fair, I didn’t have the balls to preach it either, though i didn’t have 1/100th the clue Driscoll apparently did. I was still pretty blue pill.

“That’s the whole point of this post: tradcons think it will, because they think men are the only ones deciding when sex happens, and women are just innocently along for the ride. But men aren’t only, or even primarily, the ones making that decision. No law that tries to tamp down male libido will make any difference when women are out there throwing sex at whatever attractive man comes along.”

That’s not exactly the problem, or if it is, there are a good number of attractive men who can’t read the signals that they are. The crux of the problem is young women using sex as a screening tool for masculinity. Not sure how widespread this still is, actually, but last I was in the market, they were requiring sex for relationships, and of course relationships for courtship were the societal norm.

Controlling male libido in that scenario just leads to no relationships, no courtship, and no marriage.

Funny you should mention. I just got done reading a selection from Summa Theologica with some kids. Aquinas was quite the political philosopher. He ordered his contentions in ways that could pass for contemporary.

I use the term, in discussions like these, the way Dr. Feser does in this article

Cheers for that, and never mind about using nature in its modern form. My own opinion is that nature became something distinct from natvra around the time of Hobbes’ Leviathan. He was the first guy I can point to, anyway, who redefined the word in the way we use it today commonly. The inherent tension between civilization and our baser impulses is fodder for a lot of interesting discussion, as it has been, from the beginning.

Feminists see it as unfair that in most couples, the man is physically stronger than the woman and can use that advantage to bully, assault, and even rape her. When a victim of assault goes to the police, she finds that her “partner” is presumed innocent and the burden of proof is upon her. To the feminist, this is a double whammy.

The doctrine of the criminal law is that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. This is hard to accept when the guilty parties have caused serious harm to their victims. However, the rules are there for a good reason: to protect the innocent.

Of course, as originally framed, the maxim of the law says “men” and not “persons”: and there’s the rub. Feminists do not want to see ten men who are guilty of rape walk free, even if this protects the one who is innocent. Often they do not even see the latter as collateral damage, because they do not really believe a man accused of rape can be innocent (unless he is their son or lover).

Feminists want to remove the “double whammy” that rapists have an advantage over their victims in physical strength, while victims must bear the burden of proof. However, it is not possible to change the precepts of the criminal law, because such changes would apply to crimes other than “male on female”.

Therefore feminists operate outside the criminal law. This is why the Californian law does not mandate any criminal penalties: if it did so, then the rapists/stalkers/etc would have a presumption of innocence. The law can be interpreted to reverse the burden of proof and change the presumption of innocence into one of guilt; but only if it applies to the civil matter of the student’s relationship with his University. The University can punish or expel a student according to the terms and conditions of its contractual relationship with him.

Feminists see this turnabout as fair. As far as I can tell, they use the same trick, of addressing crime by means other than the criminal law, in VAWA.

The new way of thinking will not stop at the campus gates. It is strange, to say the least, that the supposedly intelligent and educated women who are University students are to be given a higher level of protection than, say, workers in a factory or on a farm. I expect employment legislation will be changed so that men can be removed from their jobs on the say-so of a woman.

“It is strange, to say the least, that the supposedly intelligent and educated women who are University students are to be given a higher level of protection than, say, workers in a factory or on a farm.”

What is strange about illegitimate power unchecked abusing that power? What is strange is imagining such abuse is due to lack of intelligence.

Gratis Ptaka forgets a few things, when he predicts that same-sex “married” couples will become substantially more important:

1) Male homos don’t have very many children. (Probably fewer now that not many feel motivated to masquerade as normals by marrying and conceiving children with a wife.)

2) Lesbos commonly have severely screwed-up kids. These children (if they reproduce at all) tend to have similarly-damaged offspring in many cases. These will very frequently end up in the lowest classes, where major societal upheavals tend to snuff them out.

3) There are only a couple percent of homos at most by the better surveys.

4) Eventually, there will probably be prenatal/genetic tests available to either detect homosexual-prone fetuses (so they can be aborted as 70-90% of simliarly detected Downs fetuses are currently), or prevented in many cases from conception, or even the condition that causes them to be “fixed” (i.e., uterine hormonal levels).

5) Along with #4, HIV will likely reduce male homo #s even more, once it finishes getting immune to all the retroviral, etc. drugs. (Once that is the case, if HIV is ever perceived by a significant # of Joe Sis-Packs are transmissable via airborne means, homos will be shunned as Ebola exposees are now. (And never forget that more than a few lesbians are actually slightly bisexual, and disproportionately likely to have heterosex with bisexual men, helping THEM contract HIV.)

I would preach whatever I saw in the Word were I in that position, though I doubt I ever will be because of that and because I could not handle being a pastor in the long run. I would run too many off with blunt discussions of reality.

I pray for Mark Driscoll finds the truth and a way to preach that, not his own ideas. I am very skeptical about people having such life transformations due to my own experience, but they are possible. The future will show what happens.

Brad – I see that as them leaving, not you running them off. This is exactly what happened at the church I attend. As we matured, the people who didn’t want to hear sound doctrine left. Folks that didn’t want to have their sins questioned left. Many that wanted women in leadership departed. Those that balked at wives submitting to their husbands withdrew.

It is all a matter of perspective JDG, but you are right, many cannot handle sound doctrine.

Many people do not even want to think much and would rather go with light thinking and their own ideas rather than what is written. Ironically, this can be an error on either side of the spectrum, as I have noted in another thread.

I wonder how common a group of people who really struggle to understand and master the Word of God really is in history. That takes a lot more commitment than many may realize, even the supposed hard core ones here. Note how they respond (or don’t) to Scriptures that go against their doctrines.

How can a church create an atmosphere for wrestling with the Scriptures without becoming an argument-fest?

“The rapidly rising total poses challenges for the Obama administration as it seeks to lead a national campaign against sexual assault on college campuses. The students whose complaints sparked many of the cases are anxious for federal action, while colleges want to escape a list that puts an unflattering question mark next to their brand name.”

Here is a comment …“The UVA case is a joke……a female student vacationing in FL on Spring Break gets drunk and decides to parade around the beach topless. She is filmed using a cell phone camera…..by a male student also on vacation….as another male grabs her breast. On returning to campus she is mortified that her drunken behavior was caught on film and circulated on campus. Files a sex assault case with UVA for something that happened in FL….off campus….on vacation. Guess what….not much UVA can do about it…..so she files with the Feds. Totally ridiculous.”

link:
rpoor
5:34 AM CDT [Edited]

Notice it was edited and I can’t link it directly (may be wash. post comments issue).

Prior to my comments above, some commentators were expressing concern that the YmY ruling might eventually become part of criminal law, perhaps nationwide. I was addressing that issue, not how the YmY ruling might be implemented on a college campus. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not. Again, my bad. Laws can and have been declared unconstitutional.. That end-point was reached only because someone first mounted a grass-roots defense against the law. My comments were meant as suggestions as to how that defense might be started with the YmY ruling if anyone attempts to make it part of the criminal code. I was discussing ideas/concepts, not details of how the university administrators in public universities in California will behave going forward.

“You can’t convict someone for not matching to standard if the standard has not been defined.” That is always a sound place to start when challenging the constitutionality of a law. That doesn’t mean the challenge will be successful, but it is a place to start.

And, yes – I meant 200 people in my math example, not 200 couples. Thanks for the clarification.

Genesis tells us that God made woman for man. Something for his benefit. The New Testaments advises men to see women as the weaker vessel. What man treats delicate tools with abandon rather than care? Those here who guide their lives by Biblical teaching should have no trouble acknowledging that the Bible makes a strong case that the man is responsible for the woman. So here we have a woman who cares so little for herself that she gets drunk and becomes incapacitated. Does it really violate Biblical principles to suggest that man (rather than woman) should take the initiative to protect this woman from herself? A lot of you believe that Adam should have protected Eve from herself by not listening to what she said. “Adam should have behaved properly, independent of anything Eve said.” How is this any different?

I posted this in the “Arab Spring” thread, and am posting it here as well due to relevance.

Here is a pointer to an article in The Atlantic Monthly in which one Conor Friedersdorf dicusses and defends the U Cali “Yes Means Yes (Until It Doesn’t)” law. The comments are pretty predictable given that Atlantic uses Disqus and thus has full moderation. What is not said is as important as what is said: no discussion of married U Cali students, zero actual quoting of the law in question, just for a start. This sort of puff-piece is what we can expect for a while, with little hints of “Well, the law is the law, so just don’t rape, har-har” feminist triumphalism.

With the CDC’s change in the definition in “rape” … these women can’t be statistically added to the rape numbers the government put out. I am just waiting for the police / DA’s to follow suit and not bring rape charges.